Lifting of Britain’s COVID-19 restrictions could be part of giant PSYOP to gain back people’s trust

(Natural News) For the majority, Britain’s lifting of its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions looks and feels like a victory for the protesters. “People could say the protesters won because there are so many hardcore protests and so much activism happening in Britain,” said Josh Sigurdson of the World Alternative Media. But Sigurdson was by no means happy when Prime…

China reinstates ANAL swabbing to collect samples for Covid tests

(Natural News) Chinese health authorities have reinstated rectal swabbing to collect samples for Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) tests. The practice was earlier scrapped amid reports of diplomats being subjected to the intrusive collection method. According to a report translated by Insider, at least 27 residents of an apartment building in Beijing’s Haidian district underwent anal swabbing….

Driverless trucks set to take over Texas roads and highways

(Natural News) A giant 18-wheel transport truck with no one behind the wheel will soon be speeding down a multi-lane highway in Texas. The dreamlike and futuristic concept is now being tested in this big southern state in the United States, which has become a hotbed for self-driving vehicles. However, multiple tests must still be organized to ensure driverless…

Is the virus real? Steve Kirsch suggests a debate

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

My readers know that, for the past two years, I’ve been making the case that the virus is a scientific fiction, a con, and a cover story for tyranny that would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao blush with envy.

Recently, the question has been attracting wider coverage: Does SARS-CoV-2 exist?

Entrepreneur, inventor, and philanthropist, Steve Kirsch, says yes. He offers to set up a 5-hour live video debate. He’ll send his experts and other side will send theirs. They’ll go at it.

What about the usual form of scientific debate, called the written word?

Buckle up.

Kirsch: “I don’t think the folks I’d ask to do this would want to spend time writing papers…They don’t even have the time to prepare their own papers. Doing written documents is much more time consuming than talking because people spend the time to make it bulletproof.”

Heaven forbid.

Kirsch: “None of the people on our team require that all discussions be in writing only.”

Of course not. Why would his team of scientists insist on the method by which science is accomplished?

Kirsch: “One of the commenters [to an article by Kirsch] wrote this: ‘But when someone really knows their shit they would much rather handle it in a live conversation; it’s much more efficient (you don’t spend hours writing) and it reaches a wider audience, and that audience has the benefit of tone and body language to affirm (or negate) the veracity and substance of what is being said.’”

Kirsch: “I agree with that.”

Truly awesome.

Tone and body language. Yes, of course. You know, that was Galileo’s problem when he was tried by the Inquisition for insisting the Earth rotated, and journeyed around the sun. If only he’d stood up straighter and spoken with unwavering clarity (in the manner of, say, a Walter Cronkite). He might have won his case. Because tone and inflection equal science. We all realize that. Obviously, Galileo didn’t know his shit.

Spending hours writing arguments about the existence of the virus—who would have the audacity to insist on that? As Kirsch points out, his experts are busy. It’s rude to interrupt them and ask them to make their case bulletproof. Science on Video tends to be based on “we KNOW we’re sure” and “the truth is OBVIOUS” and “WE’RE the pros.” That’s good enough, and you can sell it. If you, again, display convincing tone and body language.

In medical school, they teach this. “One day you students will be called on to defend your actions and opinions with pure bullshit. I tell you that now, to prepare you for the moment. How do you shape and transmit the bullshit? Do you do it through tiresome written reports, which run the risk of exposing the truth, engraved on the page, or do you stand up before a panel and look those people in the eye and tell a story that wows them? Do you fumble to clarify a point, or do you gloss it over with a quick-hitting generality that covers a crack in your armor? Careers are won and lost on that basis.”

Kirsch believes an exchange of papers between debaters is futile. Who can, or is willing to, pore through them and analyze them? And do those written exchanges actually cover all essential points? But with video, we NEVER EVER see opponents talking past each other or quickly changing the subject to avoid unpleasant revelations. Certainly not. We never see opponents smirking like entitled monkeys and making ad hominem accusations. We never witness slippery logic sliding by before it can be isolated and corrected. We never witness grandstanding for the audience’s benefit. It’s never show biz on parade. No mainstream expert would dare intone, “Ahem, in my many years as professor of so-and-so at such-and-such, having engaged in intense research on this question, and having authored over 60 papers on this very subject…”

And then there is the suggestion, as the commenter states, that the audience can decide…on the winner in the debate. Yes. What else is a debate FOR? Science is a democracy, and the audience is the proof of the pudding. Once they vote up or down, the deed is done. This is why, in medical journals, at the bottom of every paper and study, you see the poll question: “DO YOU THINK THIS ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE? CAST YOUR BALLOT. Depending on the outcome, we will maintain the study in our archive or retract it with an apology. Everyone can vote. You do not need to be a subscriber. We work for our audience every day. If the majority of you believes one of our authors has convinced you that the moon is a slice of soft brie on a plate or an elephant’s ass, we concur. This is called consensus, and what else could science be?”

Not long ago, I crashed my Gulfstream in the Himalayas, and after a harrowing journey to the GeFunkte Hospital in Berlin, as I was lying on the operating table, two surgeons debated whether I needed one or two transplanted hearts. Later, I was told a live stream of this discussion had been piped into the hospital waiting room, and the patients expressed an overwhelming preference for two hearts, based on the charismatic presentation of Surgeon Number One, who had studied Voice and Drama at the Julliard School in New York. So…two hearts it was. You can read about the groundbreaking operation in the Medical Journal of Audience Participation.

Published blow-by-blow descriptions of “isolating viruses” are quite dense to begin with. Perhaps one person in two hundred thousand can plow through them and understand them. Therefore, the debate about the existence of a virus starts with something in writing that, for most people, is impenetrable.

It’s no surprise that these descriptions are viewed with suspicion.

“We’re the expert virologists. Only we understand what we’re doing.”

“I see. So understanding virus isolation is like understanding RNA development and insertion into lipid nanoparticles which are injected into a few billion people.”

“Yes, exactly. Only we understand that whole process.”

“Got it. I have grave doubts about everything you’re claiming about the vaccine, but I completely accept everything you’re saying about the existence of the virus.”

In this particular debate about the existence of the virus, the devil really is in the details.

The details concerning exactly how virologists believe they are isolating viruses and sequencing them. As I say, reading the studies, one sees immediately that the accounts of these procedures are laden with technical terms and technical steps.

Those elements have to be analyzed and taken apart, to see whether they make scientific sense. In fact, a debate in writing is the sane way to proceed.

Settling the question of virus-isolation via video would be quite a challenge. An exceptional amount of good will and patience, from the mainstream virologists, would be required. I’ve never seen medical “experts” show those qualities, when the basic assumptions of their professions are on the line. I’ve seen them get up on their high horse, growl, bloviate, dismiss, generalize, tap dance, boil over, accuse, pretend to be oh so reasonable, with their pants on fire.

Someone will say, “But…but, let’s wrap all this up in one sitting. Video will accomplish that. I have things to do, places to go. We live in a fast-food world, face it.”

Yes, you have to go to the store with your mask on and maintain distancing; you have to look for a restaurant that won’t make you flash your vaccine passport; you have to show up at the school board meeting to tell the members what they can do with their mandate forcing your kid to take the shot; when they refuse to listen to you, you have to sell your house, pack up your belongings, and move with the kids from New York to Florida; and all the while, you have to keep deleting voice messages from your brother who’s telling you only the injection will save you and the family wants you institutionalized.

All these and so many more to-do’s begin with the assumption that a virus exists.

So a debate on this point ought to be complete and rigorous.

If the only possibility is a video, have a go. But the written word is far superior.

“Counsel, you have a video where the defendant discusses how he can steal a billion dollars from the pension fund?”

“Yes, Your Honor. But we also have a letter of agreement between the defendant and the head of the Montebello crime family. The letter reveals the defendant has already stolen the money, and will give it to the mob in exchange for certain favors.”

“A letter, you say? Words? Sentences? In writing, on a page? Signed? And it can be read?”

“Yes, sir. Writing is an older form of expression. It’s now being phased out. But it stands up quite well. It’s bulletproof.”


The non-existent virus; an explosive interview with Christine Massey

Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

China Builds 27 Empty New York Cities

China has actually managed to build New York cities and not just one, but a staggering 27 empty ones. This by no means is an ordinary feat.

China’s vacant housing units could accommodate New York City 27 times over as of 2016, reports The Epoch Times.

To you, what does this imply? The waste of so many resources has a lot of knock-on effects. Be thankful that you don’t have to worry about wicked genies suddenly branding you with mortgaged deeds as you go through a mental exercise to learn more about the disastrous repercussions of credit bubbles.

That may be frightening. Consider the possibility that a vengeful genie has taken a disliking to you. What could be a more heinous act of malicious magic than the genie handing you the deeds to China’s staggering inventory of 70 million unoccupied apartment complexes amassing dust?

You may believe it will make you a millionaire, a real estate mogul on par with Donald Trump. But reconsider.

This could be a good time to relay an unexpectedly nice storey Trump told about himself during the late 1980s and early 1990s savings and loan crisis. At the time, 1,043 of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States collapsed as they attempted to absorb billions of dollars in over-mortgaged real estate properties.

Trump was out wandering the streets of Manhattan’s Upper East Side one evening with his girlfriend at the time. They came across a bum in a ragged peacoat resting on a grate as they walked. Trump remarked to his companion, “That guy has $1 billion more than I do.” She responded, “But he doesn’t look like he has a penny.” Trump replied, “He doesn’t.”

Trump’s riches was held captive by the banks, to whom he owed nearly a billion dollars more than his assets would have sold for in a fire sale, at the time he said that. Because Trump isn’t known for making jokes about himself, I characterize this as “an uncharacteristically charming story.” Despite this, he reaffirmed in a conversation with me that the above account I’m sharing with you is correct. It displays Trump at his best, jokingly acknowledging the ramifications of double-entry accounting.

With all that in perspective, how could you possibly manage to pay the construction mortgages on the 70 million apartment units deeded to you by the evil genie that have no residents? This is a difficult question. You’d have to do some quick talking with Chinese banks, similar to what Trump did with New York banks during the S&L crisis decades ago.

Your only chance of evading being drawn into a black hole of debt defaults is to employ some cunning crooks dressed as accountants to help you convince the banks to give you additional billions (or, more likely, trillions) to put off the inevitable reckoning. It’s worth noting that the degree to which you achieve would exacerbate the overall malinvestment problem. Adding more debt to your assets would not improve them in any way. They’d only get more expensive.

A $36.4 Trillion Question?

That’s a question worth at least $36.4 trillion. It may be a $45.9 trillion or even $116.6 trillion question. The proper answer is contingent on China’s current debt level. The Chinese bad debt crisis is 1,000 times bigger than Trump’s challenge three decades ago, when the systemic debt issue was measured in billions of dollars.

Professor Victor Shih of the University of California, San Diego, is quoted in Forbes. According to Shih, China ‘s declared debt estimates are terribly inadequate.

A $45.9 Trillion Question?

In 2017, Shih estimated total Chinese debt to be $45.9 trillion, or 328 percent of GDP (reported as $14 trillion). According to Shih, “total interest payments from June 2016 to June 2017 exceeded the incremental increase in nominal GDP by roughly 8 trillion RMB.”

If that’s the case, it’s a sign that the end is approaching. However, as bleak as it seems, the reality could be considerably more so.

Or a $116.6 Trillion Question?

You don’t accept official statistics at surface level if you’re a connoisseur of forbidden facts like me. You keep looking for clues that will lead you to the truth. Chinese government statistics, in my opinion, are just as skewed as those in the United States. Even more so.

china builds new york cities 1
An aerial view shows the Evergrande Changqing community in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on Sept. 26, 2021. (Getty Images)

Professor Christopher Balding of Peking University’s HSBC Business School, who has excellent contacts in the People’s Bank of China’s (PBOC) Financial Stability Board, recently performed some subversive arithmetic by mixing “on balance sheet assets” and “off-balance sheet assets.” Debts are liabilities for the borrowers, while they are assets for the lenders.

He comes to the conclusion that China’s overall debt is a staggering 833 percent of GDP. This equates to a debt of almost $116.6 trillion.

Wow, just wow!

Official data imply that the true debt level is three and a half times greater. China’s debt is 260 percent of GDP ($36.4 trillion), according to the National Development and Reform Commission. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) adopts a 230 percent lower official estimate. Assume, however, that Balding’s estimate of 833 percent is right. In such scenario, this is a critical issue for the global economy as well as your investments.

Annual Interest Payments of 29 Percent of GDP?

Keep in mind that Chinese interest rates are not as low as those in the United States or as negative as those in Europe and Japan. Assume that the average interest rate paid is the same as the 3.5 percent short-term interbank deposit rate. “This would imply financial services costs to the economy of 29% nominal GDP,” Balding observes. It’s a big nut to crack. Even Chinese growth rates would fall short of meeting 29 percent annual carrying expenses.

Is there a chance that Balding is correct?

Yes. There are various indications that he is.

Are Official Financial Figures Wildly Wrong?

For one thing, practically each Chinese bankruptcy case reveals concealed individual company liabilities. Balding observes, “it is common to find enormous amounts of undisclosed debts or (Enron-like) asset management products in Chinese bankruptcies or defaults.”

This adds to the idea that the true debt amount has been understated. It also entails, in Balding’s words, that “official on balance sheet financial figures are wildly wrong with disastrous consequences.” He warns, “This implies that we need to rethink the entire story of Chinese development and finance since probably about 2000.”

Balding continues: “Excessive indebtedness is distributed in virtually every sector of the economy. Before, if there was a shock to the corporate sector, householders and the government could step in and help. However, virtually no sector of the Chinese economy does not have an enormous indebtedness. Distributing it throughout simply lowers the capacity to handle a shock.”

‘No Good Deed Goes Unpunished’

Talking of “shocks,” it should come as no surprise that Balding was sacked from his position at Peking University after expressing his conclusion that China’s overall debt has risen to 833 percent of nominal GDP, based on PBOC data.

Professor Balding’s termination is as close as you can get to official affirmation that his calculations are true in a corrupt society wherein individuals possess trillions of incentives to deceive about the economy (and many have no doubt lost their lives for failing to heed them).

Balding’s disclosures can be summarized as follows: no one appears to know who owes what to whom or how much money can be resolved before the Chinese house of cards crashes. Bad debt in China’s banking system is estimated to be as much as 50% of GDP, or $7 trillion. More than enough to bring the banking system to its knees.

The asset bubble in China is about to burst. I doubt any Chinese tycoons are wandering Shanghai’s streets with their girlfriends, cracking jokes about street people being a trillion yuan richer than they are. This highlights a concern when a country’s government expands debt beyond the scale of assets possessed by even the wealthiest individuals. That makes it all the more unlikely that mortgaged assets may be repaid while still being encumbered with debt at this level.

Phil Godlewski VIDEO 1-23-22… “The Cocktail” (& Tarot by Janine’s look at his message)

Some may view this as a rather “sad” type message, but Tarot by Janine had an alternative view of Phil’s video. Phil’s intel begins at approx. 1 hour in.

One key intel point was that, even though it might seem not to be so, the January timeline (for this to end?) is still “on”.

I suggest listening at 1.5 – 2x speed, as Phil often speaks “deliberately”.

“Phil tells the unfortunate story of his Grama’s short battle with Covid-19, and the circumstances surrounding her death. He then drops another key piece of intel to his followers, before taking a brief Q&A.”
New to Phil? Go to for a 1-stop-shop of all Phil’s platforms, businesses, and social media links.

Tarot By Janine is out of YouTube jail…A little check in, Truckers convoy goes through Calgary, huge send off even though it was early! What did you think of Phil’s latest live-Cocktail…interesting! Sending you Ravens!