Thank you for reading and sharing Bailiwick News by email and social media. To support Bailiwick with a paid subscription:
Congressional acts legalizing camouflaged deceit and poisoning.Presentation to Freedom Hub, June 5, 2025
Video at Freedom Hub platforms: Rumble, BitChute. Introduction by Charles Frohman starts at about 5:15; presentation 6:50 to 34:00; Q&A 34:00 to 1:05:00. Slide deck (PDF) Thank you to Charles Frohman and Jim Grapek of Freedom Hub, and to James Roguski for the invitation to present information about federal laws Congress and US Presidents have enacted, and US agency secretaries have used, to camouflage psychological, chemical and biological warfare as communicable disease control, pandemic preparedness and response, and vaccination programs. Video interviews and presentations recorded June 2022 through June 2025.¹ Response to a reader who asked about my use of the word “airborne” twice in my False binaries post, and whether “biological” as a modifier is redundant when discussing “organisms.” I think I used the word airborne twice because of the current status of my thinking about "viruses" as dynamic (not stable) biological organisms, traces of which can be found in or on animals and humans and other creatures, with or without the experience of disease or illness, and because I'm trying to navigate the relationships between "threats" as events or processes and "pathogens" as substances that may or may not break down in air. In other words, theoretical airborne processes (transmission) and airborne substances are two different things that bear relationships with one another. Yes, probably the word "organism" implies "biological," but because of how the wording in the laws always comes back to either "biological agents" or "biological products," and in both cases, refers to dynamic (not stable) mixtures of living organisms, the biochemical compounds they absorb, create and excrete, and decaying bits of living organisms, I'm trying to keep the word "biological" in my writing about these subjects. Part of the struggle at the moment is simultaneously rebutting intellectual positions coming from several different, wrong-path directions driven by many different motives on the parts of those who espouse them, including:
I think the truth about viruses, other biological organisms and disease-states in animals and humans and other creatures is far, far more complex. I think it very possible that scientists using modern equipment and analytical techniques could learn a lot by going back to the knowledge base Semmelweis, Nightingale, Bechamp, Enterlein, Naessens, Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Lanka have tried to develop and then trying to corroborate, correct or deepen that knowledge base. I'm trying to write in ways that support, or at least don't block, the opening of gaps in the discussion through which such new work might pass. 1 Video interviews and presentations recorded between June 2022 and June 2025.
All content is free to all readers. All support — reading, sharing and financial — is deeply appreciated.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment