Free Software PDF readers

top of page

Please consider using a Free Software PDF reader to view the PDFs on this page! Thank you!


top of page

Please view the full disclaimer at Disclaimer

The following resources are provided for reference purposes only. Their inclusion on this Web page, created by Questioning the Universe Publishing (QUP)/Irucka Ajani Embry, does not represent any endorsement on the part of Questioning the Universe Publishing (QUP)/Irucka Ajani Embry nor does it represent their endorsement of Questioning the Universe Publishing (QUP)/Irucka Ajani Embry. The use of any of the listed software libraries, programs, tools, etc. and the interpretation of any results obtained remains the responsibility of the user. As well, the use of any of the resources and the interpretation of any results obtained remains the responsibility of the user. {This disclaimer is a revised version of the one found online at Internet Finite Element Resources (IFER) [Recovered with the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine].}

Fair Use Notice

top of page

Note: I have revised the Fair Use Notice found at Virtual Library /

This Web page contains links to copyrighted material encountered in the Internet, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Web page also contains excerpts of printed copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of the world that we live in so that we can heal and change ourselves from the inside out thus making a world that truly thrives and works for all.

I believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the United States Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. (United States Code) Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information please visit:


top of page

“SECRETARY AZAR: So we were alerted by some discussions that Dr. Redfield, the Director of the CDC, had with Chinese colleagues on January 3rd. It’s since been known that there may have been cases in December, not that we were alerted in December.”

“Q Then, Mr. President, the other question I had for you. When —”

“THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me — we’ll do it in a second. Let Mike — he has to get back — he has to get back to work.”

“SECRETARY POMPEO: May I just say — may I just say one more thing? There’s been some discussion about China and what they knew and when they knew it. And I’ve been very critical. We need to know immediately. The world is entitled to know. The Chinese government was the first to know of this risk to the world. And that puts a special obligation to make sure that data — that data gets to our scientists, our professionals. This is not about retribution. This matters going forward. We’re in a — we’re in a live exercise here —” [my emphasis]

“THE PRESIDENT: Should have —”

“SECRETARY POMPEO: — to get this right.”

“THE PRESIDENT: Should have let us know.”

—Secretary Azar, President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, and person asking the Question; Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing on March 20, 2020 [Recovered with the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine]

“I used to say to our audiences: ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!’”

—Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. in I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935), ISBN 0-520-08198-6; repr. University of California Press, 1994, p. 109; Source: Wikiquote page on Upton Sinclair; License: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

“When you turn on your computer, you’re making a political statement.”

“If, like most people, your computer boots Microsoft Windows, the statement you’re making is that transnational corporations should control access to the most powerful public media that ever existed. You’re passively accepting, too, that non-industrial nations should be kept from developing, and helping to preserve a monoculture that threatens the existence of minority languages. At a personal level, you’re accepting that these same corporations should control your access to educational and government services and have a right to install lock-down technologies on your computer without your permission — to say nothing of controlling what other software you can use and how you use it.”

“Most people, of course, never think of these implications. When confronted, some will claim that none of this matters. Most, even social activists, accept the situation because they don’t know of any alternative.”

“Yet an alternative does exist, and it’s becoming more viable by the day.”

“It’s called Free Software. It has already built and still runs most of the internet. Now, increasingly, Free Software is finding its way on to the desktops of those who want their ethics to extend to their computers.”

Source:Free software!”: You can’t usually do the right thing without inconveniencing yourself. Bruce Byfield reckons free software is a rare opportunity. Featured in Issue 395 of the New Internationalist magazine; License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

“No fear, Only Love! 🤗

—Irucka Ajani Embry, 15 March 2020, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

“Let’s Wake Us the Fuck Up & get the Heart back in its place”

—Irucka Ajani Embry, 16 March 2021, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

“As I have said for many years, we the people of the world have to wake the fuck up & unite so that we all can have freedom or we will have nothing.”

—Irucka Ajani Embry, 17 March 2021, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

“rEalize that health is more than the absence of “dis-ease” on the spiritual/mental/intellectual, emotional/psychic, and/or physical/sexual planes of the human body (spiritual, emotional, & physical aspects & levels]

there are Alternatives for the treatment of cancer symptoms & any other symptomatology that Ur particular being possesses at any particular instance of the intersections of time, space, and place (essentially the best healthcare recognizes that each being — in this case human — needs an individualized path to healing & eventually curing}”

—Irucka Ajani Embry, piece entitled: “Untitled: Prosaically delineating …”, page 215, from Balancing the Rift: ReCONNECTualizing the Pasenture, ISBN-13: 978-0-9914994-0-3 / ISBN-10: 0-9914994-0-9

“Is allopathic (modern “scientific” medicine) akin to torture?

∴ (Mathematical symbol for therefore), are we individuals that use that system of medicine freely, of our own will, committing self-torture?

Why would we knowingly and/or unknowingly condemn ourselves & our loved ones?

Don’t we know that plenty of alternative and/or complementary options exist?

Or has that door been concealed to most of us?

Or is it that we would prefer a microwave symptomatic recovery rather than an extended time to properly complete the curative process from the inside → outside?

Do we care more about physical appearances (clothing, hairstyles, etc. of an aesthetic nature) of ourselves & others over our very own health and the health of our race?

Why do we make the easy choices now thus resulting in costlier ($ & health = freedom) decisions later?

Does your physician know more about U & Ur health than you do? Isn’t it time that YOU become more responsible for your health?

Isn’t it past time that we clean-up our collective messes to improve the health of our race & the rest of the Earthly inhabitants, including Mother Earth/Father Sky?

Why do we still thirst for War & bloodshed in the 21st Century of the Gregorian solar calendar? Why haven’t we evolved beyond this desire? Have we been e-volving or de-volving? When will we, collectively & individually, change? Do we need more horrifically debilitating “dis-eases” to embrace our race’s beings to guide us in new (or old useful tracks of positive evolution) paths?

Do we really care about each other?

Aren’t we all interconnected & interrelated in a Universal Web of Life?

Why choose “dis-ease” = disorder = enslavement to the Medical Mafia and the drug overlords with their suppressive toxic chemical agents > health = freedom = happiness = peace = order?


Is it that we do not know the true Nature of “dis-ease” progression nor that of health?

Or is it that we have closed-off our subtle sensitivities in this overly matterialistic (matter + materialistic) False Reality Show that we interpret as Truth?”

—Irucka Ajani Embry, piece entitled: “Untitled: Controlled thoughts of…”, page 245-247, from Balancing the Rift: ReCONNECTualizing the Pasenture, ISBN-13: 978-0-9914994-0-3 / ISBN-10: 0-9914994-0-9

“Honor your body, which is your representative in this universe. Its magnificence is no accident. It is the framework through which your works must come; through which the spirit and the spirit within the spirit speaks. The flesh and the spirit are two phases of your actuality in space and time. Who ignores one, falls apart in shambles. So it is written…”

—From the Sumari text, The Sacred Script of the Covenant [Quoted in Vithoulkas, George. The Science of Homeopathy. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1980. Page 8.]

“If virulent germs were normal in the atmosphere, how numerous would be the occasions for their penetration independently by way of the lungs and intestinal mucus! There would not be a wound, however slight, the prick even of a pin, that would not be the occasion for infecting us with smallpox, typhus, syphilis, gonorrhoea.”

—Professor Béchamp, as quoted in Béchamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology By Ethel D. Hume on page 308 [prefaced by Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter: The Germ Theory Exploded By R. B. Pearson], ISBN# 978-1-46790-012-6, 2011

“The general public, however intelligent, are struck only by that which it takes little trouble to understand. They have been told that the interior of the body is something more or less like the contents of a vessel filled with wine, and that this interior is not injured — that we do not become ill, except when germs, originally created morbid, penetrate into it from without, and then become microbes.

The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master; they believe it because it is simple and easy to understand; they believe and they repeat that the microbe makes us ill without inquiring further, because they have not the leisure — nor, perhaps, the capacity — to probe to the depths that which they are asked to believe.”

—Professor Béchamp, preface to La Théorie du Microzyma, as quoted in Béchamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology By Ethel D. Hume on page 304 [prefaced by Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter: The Germ Theory Exploded By R. B. Pearson], ISBN# 978-1-46790-012-6, 2011

“In typhoid fever, in gangrene, and in anthrax, the existence has been proved of bacteria in the tissues and in the blood, and one was very much disposed to take them for granted as cases of ordinary parasitism. It is evident, after what we have said, that instead of maintaining that the affection has had as its origin and cause the introduction into the organism of foreign germs with their consequent action, one should affirm that one is dealing here with an alteration of the functions of microzymas, an alteration indicated by the change that has taken place in their form.”

—Professor Béchamp, Comptes Rendus 75, p. 1525, 1869, as quoted in Béchamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology By Ethel D. Hume on page 219 [prefaced by Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter: The Germ Theory Exploded By R. B. Pearson], ISBN# 978-1-46790-012-6, 2011

“Berthelot did not ascribe any role to these molecular granulations, and believing that he had performed the experiment “protected from contact with air”, he asserted, as in 1857, that the presence of calcic carbonate (the chalk) or of any alkaline bicarbonate directs the decomposition of the nitrogenised body (in this instance, the gelatine) in a certain manner which sets up the fermentation by regulating the steps of the phenomena. In short, Berthelot had not yet distinguished between the calcareous rocks (the chalk) and pure calcic carbonate, exactly like Pasteur in this matter, and did not yet believe that atmospheric germs had anything to do with the appearance of the molecular granulations. In short, he naturally believed that the lactic yeast of Pasteur was also constituted of molecular granulations, and that there was nothing to show that it was organized and living; as was the opinion of Pasteur, who, in 1858, stated that he had argued “on the hypothesis that the new yeast was organized and living.”

This, then, was the state of knowledge in 1860, and even much later. It was not known, although it already stood out from the facts of my memoir of 1857, and which the microzymian theory has since confirmed, that that which characterizes the fact of a living organization is not essentially, as the naturalists of the schools still believe, the establishment of the existence of some organ or structure, nor is it the presence of movement more or less spontaneous or voluntary in any living being whatever, or such as a microzyma, molecular granulation or lactic yeast, or such as a vibrionien. Rather, living organization is characterized by the property of producing and secreting zymases, each according to its nature or species; and the production of the chemico-physiological phenomena of transformation called fermentation, which are acts of nutrition, that is to say, of digestion, followed by absorption, assimilation, disassimilation, and so forth, and finally, the ability to reproduce itself if all conditions dependent upon nutrition are fulfilled.

This is what Pasteur could not understand when he alleged in 1860 that the fermentation of cane sugar by beer yeast was correlative to the multiplication of the yeast, which is as great a physiological heresy as to imagine that an animal could be nourished upon sugar alone.

But soon after, Pasteur, who had not yet explicitly invoked the germs in explanation of the alterations of organic matters and the production of the alterations of organic matters and the production of ferments, would explain by them what he had before explained by spontaneous generation; in short, he held my verification of the hypothesis to be so rigorously correct that in 1862 he published a memoir against spontaneous generation, wherein the alteration of all organic matters was explained as Schwann had done, by applying his method as improved by Claude Bernard.

That was his second plagiarism.

His experiments in the memoir of 1852 had been made with the organic substances treated, cooked, for the purpose of killing the germs which the air might have deposited upon them. In 1863 he repeated them upon blood and flesh, not cooked, for the purpose of proving that they did not contain germs capable of becoming vibrios, and that, without atmospheric germs, they would be unalterable. Not being able to heat flesh in the same manner as blood, he applied my method, substituting alcohol in the place of creosote.

That was a third plagiarism. But he could not see the vibrioniens which, in spite of the antiseptic agent, were developed in the depths of the flesh, and e concluded that neither the blood nor muscle became putrid because the germs of the air were absent from them. And he regarded as proven that there was nothing living in the blood or in the flesh, and that all animal matters, without the germs of the air, would remain indefinitely unchanged.

While Pasteur thus experimented, I continued to develop the consequences of my memoir of 1857. I demonstrated especially that not only were the atmospheric germs unnecessary for vinous fermentation, but that they were injurious, and that the grape carried normally, upon itself, the cellules of the ferments of the lees; not only the germs but the fully developed ferment. This was in 1864.

At last, in 1865, I announced to Dumas the fact of the existence in the milk, and in the chalk, of the agent which is the cause of the spontaneous alteration of the former and of that which enables the second to act as lactic ferment, agents to which in the following year I gave the name of microzymas. Pasteur, who had been named a member of the commission upon my memoir upon the ferment of the chalk, said not a word, and I continued with Estor the study of the microzymas of the higher organisms up to applications to pathology, as may be seen in the postface. This was in 1870.

In 1872 Pasteur attempted his boldest plagiarism; he discovered all of a sudden, eight years after my discovery thereof (I will state elsewhere on what occasion), that the ferment of vinous fermentation exists naturally upon the grape. In this connection he discovered also that plant and animal matters contain normally the things which cause them to alter spontaneously; that their cellules, without the atmospheric germs, are ferments. In other words, he repudiated his experiments and conclusions of 1862. He announced that his “new discoveries” would mark an epoch in general physiology; and he asserted that he had thrown a great light upon the phenomena of fermentation and “had opened a new path to physiology and medical pathology.”

This was too much: up till that time I had treated the man with consideration; but now he must be properly exposed.

First I, then Estor and I together, protested energetically. Our protests were inserted literally by Dumas and by Elie de Beaumont; the complete text can be read in the Comptes Rendus, Vol. LXXV, pp1284, 1519, 1523 and 1831. Pasteur replied by a subterfuge, to which we replied as follows: “We request the Academy to permit us to record that the observations inserted in the names of M. Béchamp and of ourselves remain unanswered.”.

Pasteur said no more, and abandoning “the new road” he pretended to have opened (a road which we showed we had not only opened but had sturdily traversed) he retraced his steps. Then, while since 1858 he had not disputed the meaning of any of the results, of any of the acts upon which the microzymian theory rests, results and facts which he knew to be exact and the discovery whereof he tried to ascribe to himself; then, I say, it was that he undertook in 1876 to explain them all by the atmospheric germs as he had “explained” them, in 1862, by spontaneous generation.

He first evoked his experiment upon the blood in 1863, and, doubtless because Estor and I, after the discovery of the microzymas of the fibrin, had not thought it worth criticizing, he qualified it as famous(!), using it to deny even the existence of the microzymas. He then canvassed for approvers to maintain that uncooked milk, like the blood, is unalterable when preserved from contact with the natural air; that without atmospheric germs there would be neither fermentation nor disease, because there would be neither ferments nor microbes; for Pasteur, in spite of the inaccuracy of the etymology, had adopted this word with which to designate the micro-organisms.

In short, Pasteur, who understood what he was about in this matter, ended by causing belief that things were as he wished they were, which as he himself has said, “is the greatest derangement of the mind.”

The strangest part of the business is that it was believed, and that the was able to make the Academies his accomplices.

It is true that he had at the same time organized the conspiracy of silence around the works related to the microzymian theory — so thoroughly, that one day, after a discussion during which I had attacked the principles of the microbian doctrines and had defended the microzymian theory, Cornil maintained that the discoveries of Pasteur had been verified in every country and that I was alone against all the would; to which I replied:

“It is not because everybody thinks so that it is true. I have demonstrated in an already old communication that the protoplasmic system, false in its principles, is false also in its consequences. It is so likewise with the microbian doctrines. For the dignity of science and of human reason it is time that they were abandoned!””

—Antoine Béchamp, The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element By Antoine Béchamp, 1912, Translated by Montague R. Leverson, [WHALE Oct 2005],

“The cellularists, it is but fair to recall, regarding the cellule as the simplest anatomical element, believed it proceeded necessarily from a former cellule, omnis cellula e cellula, holding it to be the vital unit, living per se, and regarded an entire organism as the sum of these units. But we now know that that was a deduction from incomplete and superficial observations, for the cellule, a transitory anatomical element, has the microzyma for its anatomical element. It is this which alone possesses all the characters of an anatomical element, living per se, and which must be regarded as the unit of life. It is what I have already stated in the following terms:

““The microzyma is at the beginning and at the end of every living organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole, of an organism are constituted living.”

“Let us devote a few words to develop this idea. Let us penetrate a little further into this notion of a fundamental anatomical element, which, as has been said, implies that the microzyma is the living atom of the organization as the physical atom is the element of the molecule of a simple body. This would be true if the microzyma were unchangeable in its simplicity. But in reality it is essentially mutable, as are all living bodies; and it is especially so, in order that it may fulfil its numerous functions. In fact, the microzymas, functionally different in the different anatomical systems of the same species, and different at all ages, beginning with the embryonal stage, have been primitively those of the vitellus, after having been those of the ovule. A microzyma then is not, properly speaking, an atom; but always anatomically simple, it becomes, by nutrition, that which it needs to become, so as to accommodate itself to each new condition of existence which the successive phases of the development of each anatomical system provide for it. It is thus that even in the embryo, in that which will be the ovary, a category of microzymas becomes again ovular microzymas to recommence the same cycle. I add that, taken as a whole and in its details, the THEORY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, VERIFIED, CORROBORATED by a great number of other facts of general anatomy and of pathological anatomy and of physiology.”

—Antoine Béchamp, The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element By Antoine Béchamp, 1912, Translated by Montague R. Leverson, [WHALE Oct 2005],

“My researches upon fermentations and ferments, particularly upon molecular granulations, date back some fifteen years, and those which Professor Estor and I conducted for the purpose of generalizing my earlier observations have led to this result: that the animal is reducible to the microzyma. But the microzyma, whatever its origin, is a ferment; it is organized, it is living, capable of multiplying, of becoming diseased and of communicating disease.

“All microzymas are ferments of the same order - that is to say, they are organisms, able to produce alcohol, acetic acid, lactic acid and butyric acid.

“In a state of health the microzymas of the organism act harmoniously, and our life is, in every meaning of the word, a regular fermentation. In a state of disease, the microzymas do not act harmoniously, and the fermentation is disturbed; the microzymas have either changed their function or are placed in an abnormal situation by some modification of the medium. This was what I tried to make clear by a positive example of a kind which would leave no room for misunderstanding either the extent or the bearings of the conclusion.”

—Antoine Béchamp, The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element By Antoine Béchamp, 1912, Translated by Montague R. Leverson, [WHALE Oct 2005],

“When by the attentive study of these facts one has become convinced that the microzymian theory is their pure and simple expression, it will be at once recognized that the cellule is already an organ in which, by nutrition, the conditions of the preservation of the microzymas with the constancy and regularity of their chemical and physiological functions are unceasingly realized. And it will thus be understood that the microzymian molecular granulations, whether of certain cellules, of the vitellus, or of the blood, also realize after their manner the conditions of this constancy and regularity. When these conditions are no longer realized they may undergo vibrionian evolution.

The most prominent fact in the history of the microzymas, that which has been the most disputed, precisely because of their capacity to undergo vibrionian evolution, is the fact of their anatomical autonomy. Now this faculty, which is only manifested when the normal conditions of existence of the microzymas, functioning as anatomical elements, are no longer fulfilled, is the best proof which could be given of the change which has happened in their condition, causing their irregular and changed functioning.

In fact, in their various anatomical situations, the microzymas remain morphologically similar to themselves. They function in each cellule, in each organ, in each anatomical system, naturally, chemically and physiologically for themselves while preserving their individuality; at the same time that by coordination, according to the happy and thoroughly scientific expression of Dr. Antoine Cros, they function for the benefit of the microzymian molecular granulations of the cellules, of the organs and of the various anatomical systems taken altogether, whose physiological condition of health is preserved by them.

But if from some etiological cause certain changes happen in an organ, changes such as auscultation or percussion can precisely ascertain, as, for instance, an increase in the volume of the spleen, M. Cross tells us that there is a decoordination, a functional perturbation in the entire organism and disease. It is worth mentioning that from the time Dr. Cros became acquainted with the microzymian theory, he did not hesitate to recognize the microzymas as the anatomical agents of the decoordination; how does it happen?

Among the causes which produce disease, a sudden chill in summer is the one most frequently indicated or invoked. The chill is at the same time an influence and a lowering of temperature. I do not insist on the fact that it is only something living which is painfully affected, so as to confine myself to the physical phenomenon. But the microzymas are very sensitive to variations of temperature; so much so that even the geological microzymas act regularly only at temperatures near 40 to 42 °C. (= 104 to 107 °F.); in fact, the microzymas of the chalk of Sens do not act so as to cause fecula to ferment in a temperature below 38 °C. (= 100.4 °F.). Further a very slight lowering of the temperature is sufficient for the egg which should produce a bird not to produce one, and to putrefy or to produce the monsters of Dareste when the heat is not uniformly applied. In fact, the influences of the medium (as if it should become neutral or acid), which modify the activity of the microzymas acting alone, are various. That which happens to the isolated microzymas happens also to those of the egg and for those of the organism. Suppress the air and the egg does not become a fowl, but undergoes another kind of change.

If from any cause whatever the air does not have access or has an insufficient access to the pulmonary alveolae, and their epithelium becomes the pulmonary tubercle, the cellules become reduced to their microzymas, which are then found in vibrionian evolution in the tubercle in the cretatious state. If the decoordination resulting from an irregular functioning of a part of an anatomical system is sufficient to bring on a malaise which is not removed, there will arise a diseased condition because of a sharp change of the conditions of existence of the microzymian anatomical elements, and the change in the medium sufficient to cause the decoordination will manifest itself by the vibrionian and bacterian evolution of the microzymas of such or such part of the system. It is thus that in the disease called “Sand de rate” (Anthrax), so thoroughly studied by Davaine, the diseased microzymas end by evolving into what that learned physician called bacteridiae, the blood globules undergoing the changes which are so characteristic. The bacteridiae were not the cause of the diseased condition, but were one of its effects; proceeding from the morbid microzymas they were capable of inducing this diseased condition in the animal whose microzymas were in a condition to receive it. Hence it is seen that the alteration of natural animal matters is spontaneous, and justifies the old aphorism so concisely expressed by Pidoux: “Diseases are born of us and in us.”

On the other hand, the disregard of this law of nature, the firm establishment whereof is completed by the present work, necessarily led M. Pasteur to deny the truth of the aphorism, and to imagine a pathogenic panspermy, as he had before conceived, a priori, that there was a panspermy of fermentations. That M. Pasteur after having been a sponteparist should reach such a conclusion was natural enough; he was neither physiologist nor physician, but only a chemist without any knowledge of comparative science.

What is astonishing is, that he should have succeeded in procuring the triumph of a preconceived system among physicians and in academies, and to procure the rejection of the microzymian theory [without examination. Trans.]. For instance, an enlightened physician thus summed up the fundamental proposition of M. Pasteur: “The microbes always come from without; they constitute species which remount from generation to generation up to the origin of the world.”

An eminent surgeon, M. Verneuil, ended by admitting as a demonstrated theorem that there is no spontaneous tetanus, that there is no spontaneous small pox, syphilis, glanders, hydrophobia, tuberculosis, charbon or malignant pustule; declaring that the pathogenic problem consisted solely in discovering how and when the microbe, also called virus, come from without, penetrates into the organism; declaring that the question is thus stated between old medicine and the microbian medicine “with extreme simplicity and without the least ambiguity”.

But these assertions (of Surgeon Verneuil) are reduced to nothing, when we call to mind that the pretended germs of the air are only the microzymas of organisms which have disappeared, which had become bacteria by evolution; that even at the Academy of Medicine I said—and no one ven­tured to contradict me—that no one had ever been able to reproduce a disease on the nosological roll by taking the pretended pathogenic microbe in normal air, but only in the diseased animal. And I add, that just as with time the fibrin-ous microzymas lose the property of decomposing oxygenated water so, as proved long ago by Davaine, after a short time the blood of an animal which had died of anthrax [sang de rate] no longer communicated that diseased condition; and the same is true in all cases.


—Antoine Béchamp, The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element By Antoine Béchamp, 1912, Translated by Montague R. Leverson, [WHALE Oct 2005],

“There is an implication to be found in the statement of Surgeon Verneuil, though probably not meant by him, to which assent must be given when understood. It is TRUE that there is no such THING as tetanus, small pox. syphilis, etc., as is implied by the general use of nosological terms. Disease is not a thing, an entity: it is a condition, and the error of regarding the condition of disease as an entity has confirmed, where it has not originated, much of the prevailing erroneous treatment of the sick.

Nosological terms have a use; it is that of bringing to the mind of the physician a group of pathological symptoms, which may or may not be present in the case of the patient under consideration; from them, when present, the diseased condition of the patient can be recognized and treated. Unfortunately, through not understanding this truth, attempts are frequently made to treat, not the patient, but the name, which has been given to a collection of morbid symptoms.

A broken limb is a thing; the inflammation which results from it is a condition, and if gangrene ensues the gangrene is not a thing, but a condition to be taken into consideration with all the other symptoms in the treatment of the patient. The surgeon, Verneuil, had probably a glimmering perception of this truth, but he misapplied it, for his theory and practice, as a physician, and the theory and practice of nearly all modern medicine assume that the condition to be treated is a thing having a name and this name is treated instead of the patient.”

—Montague R. Leverson, The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element By Antoine Béchamp, 1912, Translated by Montague R. Leverson, [WHALE Oct 2005],

“He who considers disease results to be the disease itself, and expects to do away with these as disease, is insane. It is an insanity in medicine, an insanity that has grown out of the milder forms of mental disorder in science, crazy whims. The bacteria are results of disease. In the course of time we will be able to show perfectly that the microscopical little fellows are not the disease cause, but that they come after, that they are scavengers accompanying the disease, and that they are perfectly harmless in every respect. They are the outcome of the disease, are present wherever the disease is, and by the microscope it has been discovered that every pathological result has its corresponding bacteria. The Old School consider these the cause, but we will be able to show that disease cause is much more subtle than anything that can be shown by a microscope. We will be able to show you by a process of reasoning, step by step, the folly of hunting for disease cause by the implements of the senses.”

—James Tyler Kent, A.M., M.D., The Art and Science of Homeopathic Medicine, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., Page 22, 2002. [Originally published as Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy in 1900.]

“In man the provocative cause of microbial disease may be a disturbance in any of the factors of his external or internal environment—be it weather conditions, availability of food, working habits, economic status, or emotional stress.

Pasteur had clearly visualized these complexities and had pointed out explicitly in his writings that the response of the infected individual was determined by his hereditary environment, his state of nutrition, his environment including the climate, and even his mental state. In the course of studies on the disease of silkworms known as flacherie Pasteur came to the conclusion, startling for the time, that the microorganisms present in such large numbers in the intestinal tract of the sick worms were ‘more an effect than a cause of the disease.’ These words were echoed a half century later by G. B. Shaw’s facetious remark in the preface to The Doctor’s Dilemma: ‘The characteristic microbe of a disease might be a symptom instead of a cause.’”

—René Dubos, Mirage of Health: Utopias, Progress, and Biological Change, pages 93-94, ISBN 978-0-8135-1260-0 / 0-8135-1260-3

“The risks attendant on the use of vaccines and sera are not well recognized as they should be. Indeed our knowledge of them is still too small and the incomplete knowledge we have is not widely disseminated. .. The late Dr. J.R. Hutchinson of the Ministry of Health (U.K.) collected records of fatal immunological accidents during the war years and was kind enough to show them to us. We were surprised to learn of the large number of persons in the civil and military population that died apparently as the result of attempted immunization against some disease or other. Yet only a few of these are referred to in the medical journals. When one considers that Dr. Hutchinson’s records covered only four or five years and was limited to Great Britain and that in other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, America and Australia probably much the same proportion of accidents were occurring, and further that such accidents have been going on for the last 60 or 70 years, one realizes that a very small proportion can ever have been described in the medical literature of the world.”

—Wilson, 1967, as quoted in Second Thoughts on Disease: A Controversy and Béchamp Revisited By Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman []

“The faith in the magical power of drugs often blunts critical senses and comes at times close to a mass hysteria affecting scientists and laymen alike. The common use of the word “miracle” in referring to the effect of a new drug reveals that men still find it easier to believe in mysterious forces than to trust in rational processes. Success in all callings is facilitated by the ability to inspire faith and to behave as though part of a priesthood. It is true that faith in the healing power of ancient gods has somewhat weakened, but faith itself has lost no ground to reason. Men want miracles as much today as in the past. If they do not join one of the new cults, they satisfy this need by worshipping at the altar of modern science [my emphasis]. There are always men starved for hope or greedy for sensation who will testify to the healing power of a spectacular surgical feat or of a new miracle drug. They provide the testimonies of the new religions for which scientists with theories unproved or incomplete are always ready to provide the mystic language. The faith in the magic power of drugs is not new. In the past, as today, it contributed to give medicine the authority of priesthood [my emphasis] and to re-create the glamour of ancient mysteries.”

—René Dubos, Mirage of Health: Utopias, Progress, and Biological Change, page 157, ISBN 978-0-8135-1260-0 / 0-8135-1260-3

“The major contributing factor toward improved health over the past 200 years has been improved nutrition. Nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate in children between 1860 and 1965 due to whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization against diphtheria.”

—Wilson, 1967, as quoted in Second Thoughts on Disease: A Controversy and Béchamp Revisited By Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman []

“The spectacular decrease in the mortality caused by infections during the past century bears testimony to the effectiveness of the measures aimed at eradication of microbes. In reality, however, the role of these measures may not have been so great as commonly believed. The toll of human lives exacted by infection had begun to decrease several decades before control measures inspired by the germ theory were put into effect and almost a century before the introduction of antimicrobial drugs. As we shall see, there came into play in Western Europe during the second half of the nineteenth century biological and economic forces that increased the resistance of the social body to infection. Granted the obvious usefulness of sanitary practices, immunological procedures, and antimicrobial drugs, it does not necessarily follow that destruction of microbes constitutes the only possible approach to the problem of infectious disease, nor necessarily the best. A century ago it was thought on the western frontier that the only good Indian was a dead Indian. Yet no one doubts today that the white man and the Indian can coexist peacefully and derive much mutual benefit from each other.”

—René Dubos, Mirage of Health: Utopias, Progress, and Biological Change, pages 73-74, ISBN 978-0-8135-1260-0 / 0-8135-1260-3

“Obsessed with the invisible microbe, virus, protozoa as ail important excitants of disease, subservient to laboratory methods of diagnosis, hidebound by our system of nomenclature, we often forget the most fundamental of all rules for the physician, that the right kind of food (nutrition) is the most important single factor in the promotion of health and the wrong kind of food the most important single factor in the promotion of disease.”

—McCarrison, 1936, as quoted in Second Thoughts on Disease: A Controversy and Béchamp Revisited By Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman []

“ABOUT BIOWEAPONS: …“Biolabs are acid labs. There are NO bioweapons. Germs are born in us and from us. Viruses are acidic waste from cellular breakdown or fermentation. Antibiotics have been the result. Which are nothing more or less than the acidic waste of fermentation. In other words, you take a yeast-like penicillium and ferment sugar and you end up with the so-called antibiotic which is the acid waste from fermentation. It is morbid thinking to believe you can cure disease with disease.””

—Dr. Robert O. Young, [], Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Robert Young — re COVID, Vaccines, Viruses, FACE MASKS AND MORE! By Robert O. Young, CPT, MS, D.SC., Ph.D., 08/30/2020

“What is a germ? It is you. Not the Real You, but the you that is having an experience as __________.”

That idea stems from 2 sources. 1) There used to be a T-shirt in the The Bigelsen Method (] store that had on the front side: “Germs R Us” and on the back side: “The terrain is everything”. 2) The various books written by David Icke { that expose the “Matrix” and help us know who we Really Are.

—Irucka Ajani Embry, 17 June 2020, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

“Why would a country that was founded by psychopaths and ruled by psychopathic, war criminals want a population that is healthy (read: free)? As an extension of that idea, why would a world, created as a horrible copy of the beautiful, original Earth and non-Matrix Universe, copied by a malevolent being (read: ignorant of the true nature of Reality and Ourselves) want a world population that is healthy (read: free and full of Love — high vibrational energy)?”

That idea stems from 2 sources. 1) The article entitled “Thomas Jefferson: America’s Founding Sociopath” By Robert Parry, Global Research, July 04, 2014/Consortium News [ 2) The various books written by David Icke { that expose the “Matrix” and help us know who we Really Are.

—Irucka Ajani Embry, 17 June 2020, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

“The ultimate foundation question of the science of bacteriology is, How did the disease germs become disease germs? But the question is still unanswered.”

—Woods Hutchinson. A.M., M.D., As quoted in The Golden Calf: An Exposure of Vaccine-Therapy By Charles W. Forward, Second Edition, 1933,

“With the increased use of therapeutic serums in the past twenty years, much has been written of the various manifestations of anaphylaxis. Urticaria, arthralgia, adenopathy and cardiac collapse are well known complications of serum therapy. Coma and occasionally death have been reported following serum injection. Many reports of multiple neuritis and myelitis following the use of Pasteur treatment have appeared, and encephalitis following vaccination is well known. Another unpleasant complication of prophylactic efforts, and fortunately one less frequently seen, is multiple neuritis.”

“In 1912, Thaon reported a case in which paralysis of the serratus magnus and other muscles developed following serum sickness due to the injection of 10 cc. of tetanus antitoxin. In 1915, Richardson reported a case of severe tetanus with recovery, which was followed by a pronounced multiple neuritis that he attributed to the action of the tetanus toxin. Dyke in 1918 wrote on neuritis…”

—George Wilson, M.D. and Samuel B. Hadden, M.D., Neuritis and Multiple Neuritis Following Serum Therapy, JAMA. 1932;98(2):123-125, January 9, 1932 []. Also archived at

“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed. Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative. Proactive, spontaneous, automated adverse event reporting imbedded within EHRs and other information systems has the potential to speed the identification of problems with new drugs and more careful quantification of the risks of older drugs.”

Electronic Support for Public Health—Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) Grant Final Report/Grant ID: R18 HS 017045 [Inclusive dates: 12/01/07 - 09/30/10] Principal Investigator: Lazarus, Ross, MBBS, MPH, MMed, GDCompSci, page 6 — [Requires PDF Software]

“Plaintiffs’ expert Jane Doe is a computer programmer with subject matter expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, and access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Over the last 20 years, she has developed over 100 distinct healthcare fraud detection algorithms for use in the public and private sectors. In her expert opinion, VAERS under-reports deaths caused by the Vaccines by a conservative factor of at least 5. As of July 9, 2021, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths associated with the Vaccines. Jane Doe queried data from CMS medical claims, and has determined that the number of deaths occurring with 3 days of injection with the Vaccines exceeds those reported by VAERS by a factor of at least 5, indicating that the true number of deaths caused by the Vaccines is at least 45,000. She notes that in the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine campaign (in which 25% of the U.S. population at that time, 55 million Americans, were vaccinated), the Swine Flu vaccine was deemed dangerous and unsafe, and removed from the market, even though the vaccine resulted in only 53 deaths.”

America’s Frontline Doctors, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00702-CLM, Plaintiffs Motion For Preliminary Injunction, page 41

“First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services [my emphasis}, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3.”

—William Henry Gates III (better known as Bill Gates), Bill Gates — TED2010: Innovating to zero! []. Also archived at

“Corona virus — COVID-19, which is an acronym that stands for, “Certificate Of Vaccination Identification (C.O.V.I.D.) — Artificial Intelligence (1 represents the first letter in the alphabet = A and 9 represents the ninth letter in the alphabet = I).””

—Robert O. Young, CPT, MS, D.SC., Ph.D., Posted on 04/23/2020, pHorever Young Blog: The Corona Virus is Just a Concept That Only Exists on Paper []

“Here’s an idea: please email your local, state/provincial AND national/federal governments, asking for solid scientific evidence that:

  • SARS-CoV-2 causes a discrete illness that matches the characteristics of all of the deaths attributed to COVID-19
  • the virus has been isolated, reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness.

—Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei, Jun 9, 2020, OffGuardian: Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch’s Postulates []

“There are two fundamental points often ignored when referring to “the death toll from COVID-19.””

  • There is no evidence or proof offered by any scientist, pathologist, or virologist that confirms COVID-19 as the “cause” of death in the certification process.
  • An expanded definition of a “COVID-19 death” was enacted by the CDC on March 24th, to include probable cases. This conflates and clusters test results creating a source of both under and overestimation. “COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD-10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death or when it is listed as a ‘probable’ or ‘presumed’ cause, it is coded as UO7.1 This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.””

—Chuck Dinerstein, MD, MBA and Charles Geshekter, Ph.D., May 27, 2020, American Council on Science and Health: Rethinking COVID-19 Mortality Statistics []

“Here is one example of how the trick may play out. A toxin creates a disease. The toxin might be pesticides or industrial pollution or wireless technology radiation. The toxin damages millions of people and their communities. Companies or their insurance provider may be liable for civil or criminal violations. Then a virus is blamed. A “cure” is found in a “vaccine.” The pesticide or other toxic exposure is halted just as the vaccine is introduced, and presto, the sickness goes away. The vaccine is declared a success, and the inventor is declared a hero. A potential financial catastrophe has been converted to a profit, including for investors and pension funds. As a portfolio strategist, I admit it has been a brilliant trick and likely has protected the insurance industry from the bankrupting losses it would experience if it had to fairly compensate the people and families destroyed.”

—Catherine Austin Fitts, May 27, 2020, Solari Report: The Injection Fraud — It’s Not a Vaccine []

“Let’s first review what features and outcomes the “coronavirus scare” shares in common with the “red scare” that drove the perceived threat of communism and the “Muslim scare” behind the perceived threat of terrorism. Here are a dozen characteristics that these perceived threats share.

  1. Fear-based and globally directed
  2. Media saturation with bias toward fear
  3. Data manipulation and propaganda
  4. Censorship of opposing views
  5. Intelligence agency control of information
  6. Preceded by exercises mimicking the threat
  7. Series of claims made that are later proven false
  8. Response threatens democracy
  9. Large increase in wealth and power for a few; increase in social inequality
  10. Increased government control of the public and reduced individual freedoms
  11. Response kills far more than the original threat
  12. Evidence for manufactured events”

—Kevin Ryan, Jun 6, 2020, OffGuardian: Is the Coronavirus Scare a Psychological Operation? []

“1. A new virus?

At the end of 2019 a coronavirus, which was considered novel, was detected in China. When the gene sequence, i.e. the blueprint of this virus, was identified and was given a similar name to the 2002 identified Sars, i.e. Sars-CoV-2, we should have already asked ourselves then how far [this virus] is related to other coronaviri, which can make human beings sick. But no, instead we discussed from which animal as part of a Chinese menu the virus might have sprung. In the meantime, however, many more people believe the Chinese were so stupid as to release this virus upon themselves in their own country. Now that we’re talking about developing a vaccine against the virus, we suddenly see studies which show that this so-called novel virus is very strongly related to Sars-1 as well as other beta-coronaviri which make us suffer every year in the form of a colds. Apart from the pure homologies in the sequence between the various coronaviri which can make people sick, [scientists] currently work on identifying a number of areas on the virus in the same way as human immune cells identify them. This is no longer about the genetic relationship, but about how our immune system sees this virus, i.e. which parts of other coronaviri could potentially be used in a vaccine.

So: Sars-Cov-2 isn’t all that new, but merely a seasonal cold virus that mutated and disappears in summer, as all cold viri do — which is what we’re observing globally right now. Flu viri mutate significantly more, by the way, and nobody would ever claim that a new flu virus strain was completely novel. Many veterinary doctors where therefore annoyed by this claim of novelty, as they have been vaccinating cats, dogs, pigs, and cows for years against coronaviri.

—Beda M Stadler, Global Research, July 08, 2020/Weltwoche 2 July 2020, Coronavirus: Why Everyone Was Wrong. It is Not a “New Virus”. “The Fairy Tale of No Immunity”: “It was even more wrong to claim that the population would not already have some immunity against this virus.” The immune response to the virus is stronger than everyone thought []

  1. “Do you really believe that the bandana you clutch to your face will stop a 100 micron virus?
  2. Do you really believe that surgical masks will do the same, when they state on the box they come in that they will not protect you from COVID?
  3. Do you understand the role of the Earth’s Biome, and the interconnected nature of all living things?
  4. Do you understand that statistics have obviously been altered and that the liberal media is obviously fear-mongering for a purpose of control?
  5. Do you not understand that this is all about vaccinating everyone on the planet to create trillions of $$$$$ for pharma-deep-state profit?
  6. Do you have any understanding how viruses work? What their purposes are in the human organism and how sickness actually occurs?
  7. Do you not understand that greater than 99% of people who “catch” COVID will recover just like they have a bad cold or flu?
  8. Do you not understand that the people who have been dying from supposedly COVID are actually dying WITH COVID and not FROM COVID? Do you know the difference in those two scenarios?
  9. Do you not understand that if COVID were not even publicized, NO ONE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT IT AND IT WOULD JUST BE THE FLU?
  10. Do you have any understanding of how the immune response of your body keeps everything in balance and check, constantly every minute you exist?
  11. Do you understand that right now you contain all the viruses and bacteria of every known disease supposedly created by viruses and bacteria?
  12. Do you understand that if you aim to kill micobes artificially in your body by toxins like vaccinations, you are actually creating MORE DISEASE for yourself?”

—saynotovaccines, Posted on May 21, 2020, Saynotovaccines: The March Of The Covidiots, and then there is Alan Dershowitz! []

“Hi everyone, I posted this before but it was pretty low down the comment chain, so here it is again (I edited since last time & feel free to edit as you see fit). Please share with your groups and/or print hard copies to distribute locally. TIA!


  • Will you notify authorities if you see someone breaking quarantine rules?
  • Do we need surveillance drones to make sure people stay 6 ft apart?
  • Should officers use infrared cameras to arrest people if they’re in public with a fever?
  • If lockdown continues through summer, will you comply?
  • What if school doesn’t re-open next year? Will you sue the state for your tax dollars back?
  • Should we be required to carry proof of immunity in order to re-enter the world?
  • Should we be required to show immunity cards to cross State borders? County borders? City borders?
  • Should we carry digital IDs with our medical information, home address, place of employment, banking information, and credit score?
  • Would it be more convenient if your information was put in a microchip and implanted in your body?
  • What if you decide you don’t want the microchip, but it becomes law… What will you do?
  • What if the chip malfunctions?
  • What if you break an unjust rule and they punish you by shutting down your digital ID; leaving you with no way to access your bank account or cross borders?
  • Do you want a fast-tracked vaccine? Even if it skips animal safety studies? Even if it’s not effective? Even if it’s made with aborted fetal cells? Even if it alters your DNA? Even if it has side effects including seizures, encephalopathy, and death?
  • Should vaccines be mandated?
  • Should vaccines come with a tattooed bar code so it’s easier to see who’s been vaccinated?
  • If you decide you don’t want the vaccine, but they come knocking on your door with a mandatory injection… what will you do?
  • Do you agree with the WHO’s suggestion of taking sick family members out of their homes?
  • Would you let them take one of your kids for the “common good”?
  • What will you do to protect your liberty?
  • Will you pay a fine?
  • Will you go to jail?
  • Live free or die?
  • Should this post be censored?


—Alchemist posted the comment on 04/18/2020 at 12:41 am, Episode 376 — Lies, Damned Lies and Coronavirus Statistics Posted by Corbett []

“Beginning in 2013, rape is defined for Summary UCR purposes as, “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The new definition updated the 80-year-old historical definition of rape which was “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Effectively, the revised definition expands rape to include both male and female victims and offenders, and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape, especially nonconsenting acts of sodomy, and sexual assaults with objects.

“This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. Proponents of the new definition and of the omission of the term “forcible” say that the changes broaden the scope of the previously narrow definitions by capturing (1) data without regard to gender, (2) the penetration of any bodily orifice, penetration by any object or body part, and (3) offenses in which physical force is not involved. Now, for example, instances in which offenders use drugs or alcohol or incidents in which offenders sodomize victims of the same gender will be counted as rape for statistical purposes.”

—Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program: Crime in the U.S. 2013: Uniform Crime Reporting Program Changes Definition of Rape Addendum []. Also archived at

“In 1916, with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health was started.”

—Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Changes in the Public Health System, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) December 24, 1999 / 48(50);1141-7 []. Also archived at

“The Rockefeller Foundation was an early and important sponsor of the CDC. The foundation thought that malaria prevention was the most important issue at that time and put money into health education.”

—Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Changes in the Public Health System, 100 Awesome Things You Never Knew About the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) []. Also archived at

Useful Images

top of page Category — Medical Cartoons: A thousand words are sometimes insufficient to say what a picture can say. Hpathy brings to you ‘More Than Words!’ — a special feature of Homeopathy 4 Everyone that brings to you rib-tickling serious cartoons!

Janet’s Planet: Covid — in Graphics, May 7, 2020

Janet’s Planet: Vaccines: Graphics, August 3, 2016

Live Life

Immune System Cartoon by Antoine Béchamp {, 'The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element' By Antoine Béchamp, 1912, Translated by Montague R. Leverson, [WHALE Oct 2005])

Quote by Antoine Béchamp

Tribute to Antoine Béchamp

Swiss Policy Research: The American Empire and its Media Foundations Fund Phony ‘Left’ Media Gatekeepers, 10-31-5 (Funding and Support)

Bill Gates: A Man of Contagious Influence! (Funding and Support)

Taking Our Health and Freedom Back

top of page

Healing From the Symptoms of “Certificate Of Vaccination Identification-Artificial Intelligence” (See the full quote from Robert O. Young, CPT, MS, D.SC., Ph.D.]

top of page

Take Action

top of page

Legal Resources

top of page

Freedom of Information Requests

top of page

Irucka Embry’s Electronic Communications

top of page

Creating and/or Hijacking Social Movements for Hidden Agendas Through Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Problem/Reaction/Solution & Financial Control

top of page

Some Dissenting Views

top of page


top of page

What Do Journalists/Reporters, etc. Actually Know?

top of page

Fake Science’s Fraudulent “germ theory of disease causation”

top of page

No Proof of the Existence of the “Coronavirus” (or any other “virus” for that matter}

top of page

No “Coronavirus” (No “COVID-19”) Cooties, So Deaths From What Causes?

top of page


Current “Fakedemic$” were Pre-Planned

top of page

Current and Past Fake Pandemics/Epidemics

top of page

Medical “Authorities”/Scientific “Experts” and Corruption

top of page

Can Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles Be Trusted?

top of page

Can the Data Be Trusted?

top of page

Antibacterials/Antibiotics, Disinfectants, Hand Sanitizers, (Bio)Pesticides, etc. & Your Health

top of page

Face Mask$ or Not {As the Fake Science “germ theory of disease causation” is Fraudulent Thus There is No Infection or Contagion (other than psychically through the Collective human energy field), why are facemask$ mandated? It is not about public health, but indirect murder of us, tyranny, blind obedience, hiding our beautiful smiling faces, etc.]

top of page

Journal Articles About Face Mask$

top of page

Are There Toxins Lurking in your Face Mask$?

top of page

“Corporament” Murder by Face Mask Mandate$

top of page

“Coronavirus” Test$

top of page

Antibody Test$

top of page

Vaccination Passport$/Agenda ID2020/“Digital Identity”

top of page

“Coronavirus” Vaccination$ Experimental Gene Therapy Technology {Search for discussion by Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.]

top of page

Report Adverse Reactions to All Vaccination$

top of page

Healing from the Adverse reactions (side effects) from “Coronavirus” Vaccination$ Experimental Gene Therapy Technology {Search for discussion by Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.] ———— Except Deaths

top of page

Adverse reactions (side effects) from “Coronavirus” Vaccination$ Experimental Gene Therapy Technology {Search for discussion by Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.], including DEATHS

top of page

Destroying the Earth, Monopolizing Life, Impoverishing People, Murdering People (people does not solely mean Human Beings} While Proclaiming to “Save Humanity & the Planet” via Stealth Means {Courtesy of the global Elites & Humanity’s Yearning to “Wait for Godot” to save us Because We Don’t Want to Realize that We Must Unite & Save Our own Fucking Selves or We Perish Together]

top of page

Can We Quarantine the Elite War Machine? We, the people, want Peace and Not War!

top of page

Socio-Economic Warfare Against the People of the World

top of page

International Human Rights Laws

top of page

Informed Consent

top of page

Distinguish Between Lawful and Legal

top of page

Distinguish Between Best Practices, Guidances, Guidelines, Laws, and Regulations

top of page

Martial Law

top of page

National Emergencies, State/Commonwealth Emergencies, Pandemics, & Judicial/Legal Issues

top of page

Current Fake Pandemic & Judicial/Legal Issues

top of page


top of page

Mandatory Face Masks & Judicial/Legal Issues

top of page

Mandatory/Compulsory Vaccination$ & Judicial/Legal Issues

top of page

top of page