It's infuriating to see this whole 'health freedom movement' reject real truths AND profit whilst doing so. I suppose therein lies an answer as to why they choose to focus on what they do. In an article i since unpublished to keep my stack inquiry focused i wrote about World Council for Health or Wealth as i called it.
''On the WCFH website they have various ‘solutions’ to treating ‘COVID-19’ and even ‘Long COVID’ using a combination of supplements and drugs like Ivermectin. Much of the information even available in 27 languages!'
Be 1 in 500 the most recent campaign
I couldn’t help but notice the WCFH slogan;
‘‘a community of change makers shaping the future’’
..which is eerily similar to the WEFs Global Shapers programme, a community of 8,000 young people in 165 countries and territories.
‘‘Founded 15 years ago on a bold belief that – given the platform, tools and trust – young people could shape the future of their cities and the world.’’
-World Economic Forum
Also last year Tess was travelling the world speaking at various events like Liberpulco where VIP tickets were on offer from $4000-$6500.
I also wonder how many sceptics who were the first to get public attention were there just for that purpose, to keep us looking to them rather than standing up for ourselves? To organise the resistance where it could be kept tabs on. I know I’m describing controlled opposition. The clever thing about it is that it leads to mistrust and division also where none is necessary. All very Tower of Babel.
''to keep us looking to them rather than standing up for ourselves? ''
-An astute observation Helen. I think that's one of the main reasons the inquiries are rejected as a focal point because it completely removes the limelight from them and onto those who really matter. We the people. It's UNIFYING not divisive and no money to be made in that. Any one of us could have been giving evidence at these inquires who 'speaking out' would care? Well none of them. eg; You can only find what people have been saying in this stack with influencers like Neil Oliver forced into covering some of it to save face imo but all quickly forgotten and thereafter lost in the noise further proving feined interest.
I thought it was interesting John O'looney out of all the 5,000 funeral directors in the UK was the one featured in the BBC April 2020 and then became a well known covid opposition figure. Another that has supported nothing i have ever posted about the inquiries.
How about the theory that convid wasn't totally a con or a cold, but a wave of radiation sickness caused by novel radiation? The lab leak talk would therefore still be a massive distraction, and all the testing and horrific treatments would stay misleading and horrific. But it would explain why some treatments did appear to be effective. They were interestingly often antiparasiticals. Not just Ivermectin and Hydroxochloroquine but also Artemisia Annua and CDS for example. Something was entering our bodies that should not have been there, even prior to the very obvious stuff. Or there was a combination of factors.
I've honestly gotten to the point where I don't trust anyone. Their takes are so scattered and senseless that I'm like, "If I get sick, f* it - I die."
I think our main challenge is the “algorithm.” When someone is doing really well on YouTube, Spotify, or Substack and covering certain topics—especially the fake “pandemic”—they’re probably not actually helping our cause. There are many ways these systems can undermine or dilute meaningful messages. Sometimes they even use conspiracy-related content to discredit people and shut down important discussions—like the “no virus” angle. Most people are fairly convinced that viruses exist, so insisting otherwise only alienates them. Instead, we should focus on showing that viruses—whether real or not—often aren’t the primary cause of death in most cases; rather, human intervention, or the lack of it, plays a major role.
It's infuriating to see this whole 'health freedom movement' reject real truths AND profit whilst doing so. I suppose therein lies an answer as to why they choose to focus on what they do. In an article i since unpublished to keep my stack inquiry focused i wrote about World Council for Health or Wealth as i called it.
''On the WCFH website they have various ‘solutions’ to treating ‘COVID-19’ and even ‘Long COVID’ using a combination of supplements and drugs like Ivermectin. Much of the information even available in 27 languages!'
Be 1 in 500 the most recent campaign
I couldn’t help but notice the WCFH slogan;
‘‘a community of change makers shaping the future’’
..which is eerily similar to the WEFs Global Shapers programme, a community of 8,000 young people in 165 countries and territories.
‘‘Founded 15 years ago on a bold belief that – given the platform, tools and trust – young people could shape the future of their cities and the world.’’
-World Economic Forum
Also last year Tess was travelling the world speaking at various events like Liberpulco where VIP tickets were on offer from $4000-$6500.
On and on.
Global shape shifters more like...
Very good Helen. So many people are having a great time travelling the world etc 'speaking out.'
It does look suspicious when they are doing it in a modified Obama/Blair form...
I often find sceptics switch their brain off when it comes to other sceptics particularly those more well known.
I also wonder how many sceptics who were the first to get public attention were there just for that purpose, to keep us looking to them rather than standing up for ourselves? To organise the resistance where it could be kept tabs on. I know I’m describing controlled opposition. The clever thing about it is that it leads to mistrust and division also where none is necessary. All very Tower of Babel.
''to keep us looking to them rather than standing up for ourselves? ''
-An astute observation Helen. I think that's one of the main reasons the inquiries are rejected as a focal point because it completely removes the limelight from them and onto those who really matter. We the people. It's UNIFYING not divisive and no money to be made in that. Any one of us could have been giving evidence at these inquires who 'speaking out' would care? Well none of them. eg; You can only find what people have been saying in this stack with influencers like Neil Oliver forced into covering some of it to save face imo but all quickly forgotten and thereafter lost in the noise further proving feined interest.
I thought it was interesting John O'looney out of all the 5,000 funeral directors in the UK was the one featured in the BBC April 2020 and then became a well known covid opposition figure. Another that has supported nothing i have ever posted about the inquiries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52193244
How about the theory that convid wasn't totally a con or a cold, but a wave of radiation sickness caused by novel radiation? The lab leak talk would therefore still be a massive distraction, and all the testing and horrific treatments would stay misleading and horrific. But it would explain why some treatments did appear to be effective. They were interestingly often antiparasiticals. Not just Ivermectin and Hydroxochloroquine but also Artemisia Annua and CDS for example. Something was entering our bodies that should not have been there, even prior to the very obvious stuff. Or there was a combination of factors.
I think it's something that we should continue to investigate!
I've honestly gotten to the point where I don't trust anyone. Their takes are so scattered and senseless that I'm like, "If I get sick, f* it - I die."
I've basically just surrendered... 🤷🏻
I think our main challenge is the “algorithm.” When someone is doing really well on YouTube, Spotify, or Substack and covering certain topics—especially the fake “pandemic”—they’re probably not actually helping our cause. There are many ways these systems can undermine or dilute meaningful messages. Sometimes they even use conspiracy-related content to discredit people and shut down important discussions—like the “no virus” angle. Most people are fairly convinced that viruses exist, so insisting otherwise only alienates them. Instead, we should focus on showing that viruses—whether real or not—often aren’t the primary cause of death in most cases; rather, human intervention, or the lack of it, plays a major role.
Okay, see… now THAT makes sense! 🫡 ☺️