Even the most valuable solution to a crime can unintentionally push other important aspects of the case into the background. A small correction of the current news from Slovakia.
You're right. Of the doctors of the past, only the snake venom dealers remain now. They are also the perpetrators' agents, because they are forwarding the reports about who has been "vaccinated" against "Covid" and who hasn't. Thus, they have become enemy spies!
Seems the doctors may regret their compliance. The European Court of Justice has apparently ruled that doctors are responsible for 'vaccine' harms, since they had the choice not to 'vaccinate'. This ruling also exonerates doctors who refused to 'vaccinate' and who were punished professionally for that.
Two things to know for an average punter like myself...
1. There is not and never was a COVID 19.
2. If you inject Me with anything that is not Me, Me will go wild to get it out of Me or make it dead. (On the macro level, it's like ridding society of malevolent criminality. Sometimes the crims dominate, but you take all possible measures and make extreme sacrifices to stop them. Listening WEF? Listening, Bill, Yuval, Klaus? The body will eventually reject you, for all your virulence. It's nature.)
My personal comparison on a macro level would be this: The criminals are killed along with all the residents of the large apartment blocks in which these criminals live. "Apartment blocks" i.e. the body cells that produce/express these artificial, non-body proteins. For example, if the body's heart cells are forced to produce such proteins, they are killed by the immune system because they are considered denatured. This can lead to scarring of the heart and a partial loss of its function; regeneration of the heart (just as with the brain) is not possible. The consequences can include myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke, heart attack, etc. Such a design can only cause harm. So it can only be intentional harm. Although this is very easy to understand, many people don't want to understand it.
I don't think Dr Rancourt is saying there is 'distraction FROM quality control issues'. He is specifically saying there is 'distraction TOWARDS solvable quality control issues', i.e. the powers that be want us to think about the issues as 'mistakes were made', because they can then say 'but we can make these vaccines without the initial mistakes'. That distracts us FROM the malicious intent. For my money, Dr Rancourt knows exactly how evil the operation has been and continues to be.
I agree with you on Rancourt but my understanding of what Mike Yeadon is saying is that, given the composition of what was injected, there is no possible way the perpetrators can say they did not know what the results would be, and we must conclude depraved indiffernce if not malicious intent.
Many scientists who focus on the shot have been loathe to ascribe intent or speak to motive and/or insist there was a pandemic, a novel spreading viral agent, etc. Rancourt and Yeadon are among the exceptions, but I appreciate Suavek's emphasis here on the ENTIRE fraud - not only the shots.
People were sold on the need for a shot by lies involving a new disease threat
Indeed. The writer who produces the biologyphenom website (who has meticulously uploaded the entire official Scottish Covid Inquiry) is very frustrated that the incontrovertible evidence of human rights abuses (=hospital and care-home murder protocols) isn't just being ignored by the mainstream media, but also by the bulk of the 'alt' media as well. I've pointed out to a bunch of Guardian 'journalists' myself at least 3 times that they've neglected to report on it, not that I was expecting a response. JJ Couey went through it in some detail, but most are ignoring it.
There was a period of time, mostly in late 2020, when apart from dismantling the ridiculous PCR-based “diagnostic test”, I only spoke about the changed medical procedures being applied to patients in hospitals and care homes.
Feedback over time suggests that most people who have heard me speak did so in late-2020 and late-2021, so very likely they would have heard me explain why I was so sure that, in both settings, what was being done constitutes murder.
My PhD was on research into understanding the adverse effects of opiates like fentanyl and morphine on multiple aspects of the respiratory reflex. Respiratory depression is inseparable from analgesic effects of opiates. Knowledge of this has been exploited by medical doctors since time immemorial to “help people pass”. I also knew of the synergistic effects of benzodiazepine class of sedative / anxiolytic drugs like midazolam and morphine. There are prominent warnings not to co-administer these two drugs in patients not subject to close medical monitoring. There’s strong evidence (pharmacist whistleblower) that in the year before the fraudulent pandemic, UK’s National Health Service stockpiled around one year’s supply of midazolam, all of which was dispensed in spring 2020. Murder with malice aforethought, in my opinion.
As for sedation, intubation and mechanical ventilation, I do not believe this is ever appropriate in suspected ‘flu patients with an unobstructed airway and an intact chest wall. If they needed oxygen, an oxygen mask held by them or an oxygen-enriched cannula, taped near their nostrils, is appropriate.
Life support by mechanical ventilation of course has its place: in elective surgery, in patients who may or have stopped breathing (stroke, trauma, drug overdose etc) or those in such extreme pain (extensive, deep burns, multiple fractures etc). I struggle to believe acute care physicians don’t know this. I’m not a pulmonologist but had been in respiratory research for over 30 years.
Mechanical ventilation as above is lifesaving, used appropriately. However, it’s an aggressive procedure, and minimising pulmonary injury is the most prominent concern. Such people are extremely vulnerable to anything inappropriate. There are several ways to bring about the death of the patient without it being obvious to inexpert onlookers. The extraordinary number of patients subjected to mechanical ventilation who then died were, in my opinion, murdered, too.
Thanks for the useful recap - i've seen all of this in your writings before, but it is useful to have it all together. There was also a mention way back that the frequencies used by ventilators added to the dangerous effect - I don't know if there's anything in that, as I don't understand how that works.
Looking back on the whole ventilator part of the psyop, it was thoroughly evil in itself. It used the time-honoured psychology of people desperately wanting something - or being persuaded that it's valuable/critical - because it's in short supply, which is used for selling things generally (buy now - only 5 left!!). The nonsense that went on with people like Dyson offering to make ventilators was ridiculous.
I also recall TV news items where doctors in critical care units (since when were random journalists allowed in critical care units anyway?) were saying there was no treatment for these poor people but they had to flip them over so they were lying face down to help them breathe. That all seems weird in retrospect, but I'm not a doctor.
Yes, in retrospect I now think I understand why characters in films & TV programs were seen in hospitals hooked up to machines, so preparing people to expect or to recognise this as correct treatment for a very sick person.
Mechanically ventilating a patient is so complicated to do well (maintaining blood gases and pH; the right depth of sedation or anaesthesia; using the lowest inflation pressure because this is an unnatural & injurious process; setting the right PEEP, pulmonary end-expiratory pressure, necessary to prevent collapse of deep respiratory units over time; setting appropriate humidity since they’re bypassing normal “conditioning” of inhaled air which your body regulates automatically & more I’ve forgotten) is so complicated and involves integration of multiple variables, that it’s termed “flying the patient”. The difference in outcomes between having a good “pilot” and an incompetent one is life vs death.
The machines that ventilate patients are made by very few companies and are extremely expensive. The idea of a vacuum cleaner company or a car company knocking out ventilators was absurd and terrifyingly stupid.
Key point: NOBODY with flu like illnesses should be on ventilators in the first place!!! If they can breath on their own, they should do so. With oxygen supplementation if required.
I'm writing to Jessica and SheilaB at the same time because my answer concerns both of you. It would not have made sense if I had written the two answers separately, because both answers represent a necessary explanation of the article.
Thank you, Jessica, for your comment. In this article, of all things, I was primarily concerned with toxicity in design. Please see what I subsequently wrote under Dr. Yeadon's (newly published) foreword:
"Editor's note: I am very grateful to Dr. Yeadon for his prompt response to this article, which allowed me to include his statement here as a preface. The main purpose of my post actually coincides with his statement and was to counteract any potential confusion. The intention to cause harm, evident in the design of the toxic substances, should not be distracted or pushed into the background by anything. Given the current situation, I felt compelled to publish this article as soon as possible and will need to add to it later."
However, since I wrote a long comment today, I've added the text to the article. In my opinion, repeating that there was no "COVID" at all is essential if the strategy is to be successful. Propaganda also uses repetition very successfully.
I didn't claim that Professor Rancourt was trying to deflect attention from something, but rather that he was claiming that the FDA might be trying to deflect attention from something. The question "What is it deflecting attention from?" leaves a lot of room for interpretation, in my opinion... In my opinion, the issue of contamination is very likely to distract from the intent to cause harm. That would mean it doesn't just concern the "solvable quality control problems." Since I wasn't sure whether my comment on this was correctly worded, I have since deleted it. I feel more inclined to agree with the short commentary by Dr. Alex Kennerly Vasquez.
Thanks for replying, Suavek, and apologies if I wasted your time. I was commenting on something I can't even find any more (maybe in one of the sub-articles). My fault - I thought I saw a comment saying 'I wonder if Dr Rancourt fully realises the depth of evil' or something like that. I was just saying I'm sure he does. Like I said, I can't even find the comment I was responding to now!
Yes, well-stated. It is my contention that there are several, rather prominent features of the injections that all my research-based peers (so, vice president level staff) & most of my direct reports (all had PhDs in a biological specialty) would know must not be included in a product to be administered to much of the population.
The feature I am most confident that those above would know is impermissible (safety is always paramount) is the intention to cause the body to express a non-self protein. I’m sure of this because, in receiving instruction about the basics of immunology, the distinction between self and non-self & how utterly central this is to health and disease classifies as “Immunology 101”. Anyone who claims to know anything at all about immunology, knows that causing the body to express non-self proteins, whatever they are, is going to prompt the body to mount a highly orchestrated and lethal attack upon every cell complying with the injected instructions.
There are several other built-in safety liabilities, but the one described is inescapable. It was done with harmful intentions and there are no good outcomes possible.
Take a look at Jules On The Beach's (Julian Gillespie) SS today, especially the Commisioner's letter that is provided. Note that Dr. Richard Fleming, and most likely his fleming method research, is mentioned in it. Please let us know what you think ; )
In particular, the disingenuous nature of those deeply involved, claiming no knowledge of the means of industrial upscale nor any experience with a novel technology (modRNA/LNP shots).
And still a majority would prefer to continue in the State orchestrated delusion.
Every time a pseudo-drug turns out to be pure poison, a new one is produced. And time and again, it's initially claimed to be "safe and effective" until people get a little wiser. And then something “safe and effective” comes onto the market again. A never-ending story with a horizontal learning curve that can never be vertical?
Inhaling a protein or nucleic acid is a very bad idea. The general rule of thumb is people barging into highly technical domains about which they know almost nothing and expecting decent penetration into the airway tree and/or generating absorption into the bloodstream that they didn’t expect. Also, if the material to be inhaled is a complex mixture of lipids, proteins or other macromolecules, the one thing you can rely upon is that the energy input required to form a respirable aerosol is likely to disrupt your carefully created formulation. Seen this dozens of times.
There’s a reason why there is only a tiny number of companies who are successful in inhaled drugs. It’s extraordinarily difficult to do well.
Great information, Suavek. I also believe the evidence (amoung many) that Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and others proved that the pcr test was incapable of detecting illness (and the late Kary Mullis, the inventor of the pcr) and was a fraud and thus no pandemic existed (and there never has been one per Dr. Yeadon and others), is the first domino that should fall. No contagious illnesses, no vaccines needed. The intent to harm by producing these bioweapons is clear and irrefutable., even if they say they were "working at the speed of science". Next, viruses don't exist.
You're right. Of the doctors of the past, only the snake venom dealers remain now. They are also the perpetrators' agents, because they are forwarding the reports about who has been "vaccinated" against "Covid" and who hasn't. Thus, they have become enemy spies!
Seems the doctors may regret their compliance. The European Court of Justice has apparently ruled that doctors are responsible for 'vaccine' harms, since they had the choice not to 'vaccinate'. This ruling also exonerates doctors who refused to 'vaccinate' and who were punished professionally for that.
https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/p/the-mopping-up-operation
The only problem with Dr Garcia's article is that he includes a paragraph that endorses the existence of covid in the first place.
Fraud from start to finish.
Mistakes were not made.
Plans were executed and were largely successful.
Fait accompli
Thank you, Jessica.
Nailed it.
Two things to know for an average punter like myself...
1. There is not and never was a COVID 19.
2. If you inject Me with anything that is not Me, Me will go wild to get it out of Me or make it dead. (On the macro level, it's like ridding society of malevolent criminality. Sometimes the crims dominate, but you take all possible measures and make extreme sacrifices to stop them. Listening WEF? Listening, Bill, Yuval, Klaus? The body will eventually reject you, for all your virulence. It's nature.)
My personal comparison on a macro level would be this: The criminals are killed along with all the residents of the large apartment blocks in which these criminals live. "Apartment blocks" i.e. the body cells that produce/express these artificial, non-body proteins. For example, if the body's heart cells are forced to produce such proteins, they are killed by the immune system because they are considered denatured. This can lead to scarring of the heart and a partial loss of its function; regeneration of the heart (just as with the brain) is not possible. The consequences can include myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke, heart attack, etc. Such a design can only cause harm. So it can only be intentional harm. Although this is very easy to understand, many people don't want to understand it.
Nice. Apartment blocks and all. So long as we are slaughtering villains, I'm good.
I don't think Dr Rancourt is saying there is 'distraction FROM quality control issues'. He is specifically saying there is 'distraction TOWARDS solvable quality control issues', i.e. the powers that be want us to think about the issues as 'mistakes were made', because they can then say 'but we can make these vaccines without the initial mistakes'. That distracts us FROM the malicious intent. For my money, Dr Rancourt knows exactly how evil the operation has been and continues to be.
I agree with you on Rancourt but my understanding of what Mike Yeadon is saying is that, given the composition of what was injected, there is no possible way the perpetrators can say they did not know what the results would be, and we must conclude depraved indiffernce if not malicious intent.
Many scientists who focus on the shot have been loathe to ascribe intent or speak to motive and/or insist there was a pandemic, a novel spreading viral agent, etc. Rancourt and Yeadon are among the exceptions, but I appreciate Suavek's emphasis here on the ENTIRE fraud - not only the shots.
People were sold on the need for a shot by lies involving a new disease threat
Indeed. The writer who produces the biologyphenom website (who has meticulously uploaded the entire official Scottish Covid Inquiry) is very frustrated that the incontrovertible evidence of human rights abuses (=hospital and care-home murder protocols) isn't just being ignored by the mainstream media, but also by the bulk of the 'alt' media as well. I've pointed out to a bunch of Guardian 'journalists' myself at least 3 times that they've neglected to report on it, not that I was expecting a response. JJ Couey went through it in some detail, but most are ignoring it.
I have cited it in 10 substack artciles
Great, thanks. (I'm in Scotland!)
Hope to visit someday!
Latest mention was here https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/place-of-democide-differences-in
Thanks for the article.
There was a period of time, mostly in late 2020, when apart from dismantling the ridiculous PCR-based “diagnostic test”, I only spoke about the changed medical procedures being applied to patients in hospitals and care homes.
Feedback over time suggests that most people who have heard me speak did so in late-2020 and late-2021, so very likely they would have heard me explain why I was so sure that, in both settings, what was being done constitutes murder.
My PhD was on research into understanding the adverse effects of opiates like fentanyl and morphine on multiple aspects of the respiratory reflex. Respiratory depression is inseparable from analgesic effects of opiates. Knowledge of this has been exploited by medical doctors since time immemorial to “help people pass”. I also knew of the synergistic effects of benzodiazepine class of sedative / anxiolytic drugs like midazolam and morphine. There are prominent warnings not to co-administer these two drugs in patients not subject to close medical monitoring. There’s strong evidence (pharmacist whistleblower) that in the year before the fraudulent pandemic, UK’s National Health Service stockpiled around one year’s supply of midazolam, all of which was dispensed in spring 2020. Murder with malice aforethought, in my opinion.
As for sedation, intubation and mechanical ventilation, I do not believe this is ever appropriate in suspected ‘flu patients with an unobstructed airway and an intact chest wall. If they needed oxygen, an oxygen mask held by them or an oxygen-enriched cannula, taped near their nostrils, is appropriate.
Life support by mechanical ventilation of course has its place: in elective surgery, in patients who may or have stopped breathing (stroke, trauma, drug overdose etc) or those in such extreme pain (extensive, deep burns, multiple fractures etc). I struggle to believe acute care physicians don’t know this. I’m not a pulmonologist but had been in respiratory research for over 30 years.
Mechanical ventilation as above is lifesaving, used appropriately. However, it’s an aggressive procedure, and minimising pulmonary injury is the most prominent concern. Such people are extremely vulnerable to anything inappropriate. There are several ways to bring about the death of the patient without it being obvious to inexpert onlookers. The extraordinary number of patients subjected to mechanical ventilation who then died were, in my opinion, murdered, too.
Thanks for the useful recap - i've seen all of this in your writings before, but it is useful to have it all together. There was also a mention way back that the frequencies used by ventilators added to the dangerous effect - I don't know if there's anything in that, as I don't understand how that works.
Looking back on the whole ventilator part of the psyop, it was thoroughly evil in itself. It used the time-honoured psychology of people desperately wanting something - or being persuaded that it's valuable/critical - because it's in short supply, which is used for selling things generally (buy now - only 5 left!!). The nonsense that went on with people like Dyson offering to make ventilators was ridiculous.
I also recall TV news items where doctors in critical care units (since when were random journalists allowed in critical care units anyway?) were saying there was no treatment for these poor people but they had to flip them over so they were lying face down to help them breathe. That all seems weird in retrospect, but I'm not a doctor.
Yes, in retrospect I now think I understand why characters in films & TV programs were seen in hospitals hooked up to machines, so preparing people to expect or to recognise this as correct treatment for a very sick person.
Mechanically ventilating a patient is so complicated to do well (maintaining blood gases and pH; the right depth of sedation or anaesthesia; using the lowest inflation pressure because this is an unnatural & injurious process; setting the right PEEP, pulmonary end-expiratory pressure, necessary to prevent collapse of deep respiratory units over time; setting appropriate humidity since they’re bypassing normal “conditioning” of inhaled air which your body regulates automatically & more I’ve forgotten) is so complicated and involves integration of multiple variables, that it’s termed “flying the patient”. The difference in outcomes between having a good “pilot” and an incompetent one is life vs death.
The machines that ventilate patients are made by very few companies and are extremely expensive. The idea of a vacuum cleaner company or a car company knocking out ventilators was absurd and terrifyingly stupid.
Key point: NOBODY with flu like illnesses should be on ventilators in the first place!!! If they can breath on their own, they should do so. With oxygen supplementation if required.
I'm writing to Jessica and SheilaB at the same time because my answer concerns both of you. It would not have made sense if I had written the two answers separately, because both answers represent a necessary explanation of the article.
.........................................................
Thank you, Jessica, for your comment. In this article, of all things, I was primarily concerned with toxicity in design. Please see what I subsequently wrote under Dr. Yeadon's (newly published) foreword:
"Editor's note: I am very grateful to Dr. Yeadon for his prompt response to this article, which allowed me to include his statement here as a preface. The main purpose of my post actually coincides with his statement and was to counteract any potential confusion. The intention to cause harm, evident in the design of the toxic substances, should not be distracted or pushed into the background by anything. Given the current situation, I felt compelled to publish this article as soon as possible and will need to add to it later."
However, since I wrote a long comment today, I've added the text to the article. In my opinion, repeating that there was no "COVID" at all is essential if the strategy is to be successful. Propaganda also uses repetition very successfully.
.......................................................
Now, regarding SheilaB's statement.
Thank you for your comment, Sheila.
I didn't claim that Professor Rancourt was trying to deflect attention from something, but rather that he was claiming that the FDA might be trying to deflect attention from something. The question "What is it deflecting attention from?" leaves a lot of room for interpretation, in my opinion... In my opinion, the issue of contamination is very likely to distract from the intent to cause harm. That would mean it doesn't just concern the "solvable quality control problems." Since I wasn't sure whether my comment on this was correctly worded, I have since deleted it. I feel more inclined to agree with the short commentary by Dr. Alex Kennerly Vasquez.
............................................................
All the best to you both, and thank you again!
Suavek
Thanks for replying, Suavek, and apologies if I wasted your time. I was commenting on something I can't even find any more (maybe in one of the sub-articles). My fault - I thought I saw a comment saying 'I wonder if Dr Rancourt fully realises the depth of evil' or something like that. I was just saying I'm sure he does. Like I said, I can't even find the comment I was responding to now!
Jessica,
Yes, well-stated. It is my contention that there are several, rather prominent features of the injections that all my research-based peers (so, vice president level staff) & most of my direct reports (all had PhDs in a biological specialty) would know must not be included in a product to be administered to much of the population.
The feature I am most confident that those above would know is impermissible (safety is always paramount) is the intention to cause the body to express a non-self protein. I’m sure of this because, in receiving instruction about the basics of immunology, the distinction between self and non-self & how utterly central this is to health and disease classifies as “Immunology 101”. Anyone who claims to know anything at all about immunology, knows that causing the body to express non-self proteins, whatever they are, is going to prompt the body to mount a highly orchestrated and lethal attack upon every cell complying with the injected instructions.
There are several other built-in safety liabilities, but the one described is inescapable. It was done with harmful intentions and there are no good outcomes possible.
Best wishes
Mike
Dear Sheila, thank you for your comment. I've replied to you and Jessica together here:
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/toxic-by-design-part-21-the-unintentional/comment/100550737
It would not have made sense if I had written the two answers separately, because both answers represent a necessary explanation of the article.
Take a look at Jules On The Beach's (Julian Gillespie) SS today, especially the Commisioner's letter that is provided. Note that Dr. Richard Fleming, and most likely his fleming method research, is mentioned in it. Please let us know what you think ; )
"They have NOTHING to do with the supposedly hasty manufacturing technology."
Indeed.
The time lines outlined below (well known by those paying attention) are an utterly damning indictment of the purported process.
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/the-coagulation-of-evil
In particular, the disingenuous nature of those deeply involved, claiming no knowledge of the means of industrial upscale nor any experience with a novel technology (modRNA/LNP shots).
And still a majority would prefer to continue in the State orchestrated delusion.
"Toxic by design? How dare you?" 😰
https://healthsci.mcmaster.ca/made-at-mcmaster-inhaled-covid-19-vaccine-begins-phase-2-human-trial/
Hi Marie,
Every time a pseudo-drug turns out to be pure poison, a new one is produced. And time and again, it's initially claimed to be "safe and effective" until people get a little wiser. And then something “safe and effective” comes onto the market again. A never-ending story with a horizontal learning curve that can never be vertical?
Best wishes,
Suavek
Inhaling a protein or nucleic acid is a very bad idea. The general rule of thumb is people barging into highly technical domains about which they know almost nothing and expecting decent penetration into the airway tree and/or generating absorption into the bloodstream that they didn’t expect. Also, if the material to be inhaled is a complex mixture of lipids, proteins or other macromolecules, the one thing you can rely upon is that the energy input required to form a respirable aerosol is likely to disrupt your carefully created formulation. Seen this dozens of times.
There’s a reason why there is only a tiny number of companies who are successful in inhaled drugs. It’s extraordinarily difficult to do well.
Great information, Suavek. I also believe the evidence (amoung many) that Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and others proved that the pcr test was incapable of detecting illness (and the late Kary Mullis, the inventor of the pcr) and was a fraud and thus no pandemic existed (and there never has been one per Dr. Yeadon and others), is the first domino that should fall. No contagious illnesses, no vaccines needed. The intent to harm by producing these bioweapons is clear and irrefutable., even if they say they were "working at the speed of science". Next, viruses don't exist.
2013 FDA slide deck:
https://bailiwicknewsarchives.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2013.11.13-fda-biosimilar-biological-products-slide-deck-small-molecule-biological-product-comparison-chart.pdf
2014 FDA slide deck:
https://bailiwicknewsarchives.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2014-fda-cder-obp-office-biotechnology-products-immunogenicity-therapeutic-proteins-pedras-vasconcelos-slide-deck.pdf
There are many other FDA, WHO, DoD and NASEM publications with information about immunogenicity and immunotoxicity of foreign biological matter.
indeedy there is no need for injections when there is no virus
just intentional harm from the parasites