Idiotic but funny. Thanks! my fan club is numerous and very diverse, spanning the rainbow of clowns from Robert Malone and MAHA apologists to mentally ill child predators JJ Couey/Housatonic duo to the PCR pushing fraudsters like Jikky/Arkmedic, and the Kevins, to nanotechnology nutjobs, to no-virus trolls, to ... well, I don't know what particular brand of troll VAET is, but of course they are anonymous, duh (because they are brave undercover fighters, you must understand!)
Thanks for your love and entertainment that you work so hard to provide for me. This must have taken weeks of work! I appreciate the effort that you put in writing sheer nonsense and fabricating so much bullshit. I don't own a TV, so you are invaluable source of retarded comedy.
It just took 5 days part time, not that much effort, don't worry. Nobody with half a brain takes Jane seriously, but it's useful to have a reference on her to talk about you.
Where did you guys met by the way, was it the iCardiac days ?
The Gigaspiral brothers are also my fans, but the difference is that they avoid me - while you're a "target" for them. They can't be wrong on "who is nefarious" every time, a broken clock is right twice a day.
For the rest you named as your "fans" the Kevins (who both have made more than valuable contributions to the field), Arkmedic - same thing, and Robert Malone (current ACIP member). While you're as useful to the anti-vaccine cause as a fart in the elevator.
I'm not surprised you never heard about me - my work is kinda fundamental on the Pfizer trial, which is one of your topics of "expertise", so of course you haven't heard about me 😂
I'll ask you the same thing I had asked on Twitter ; can you quote me one legal proceeding, somewhere in the world, which successfully used your expertise for something, please ..?
There are several legal proceedings which use my research and Katherine Watt's research - several CHD cases, Dr. Kirk Moore's defense, Kenny Maurer's defense, Louis Bayliss defense (successfully). I am an expert witness in the case against Bill Gates, Albert Bourla and several Dutch state officials that is currently ongoing. There was another expert witness together with me - Francis Boyle, but it looks like he was murdered. It is an important case after all. What have you done, brave anonymous freedom fighter patriot? Which legal cases are using you as an expert witness? Which legal cases is Robert Malone assisting? Oh, and btw, every baby that dies from RSV shot and yesterday's approved Moderna shot - it's children's blood on his hands. So, by all means, keep kissing his arse, it's working.
I am so interested why you spend a whole workweek!!! working on attacking and smearing people while hiding your identity.
What is your source of income?
We need to see you CV and tax returns.
Who are you married to? Ex spouses?
Who are your children (so that Couey, Housatonic and every offended nutjob can trash them continuously, too)
Is this VAET thing one person or a group?
Where are you located?
Who are your sponsors?
How can anyone take anything you write seriously, beats me.
I guess your calculations of '5 days part time' is somehow a 'full working week,' is as good as your 82% miscarriage calculations.
Let me get this straight. You want to know who this authors children are, so that they can be attacked. You're not exactly showing yourself in a good light here, Sasha.
What do you have to say about Jane Ruby’s involvement in the Indivior fraud? Since you're here saying everything is fabricated, prove it's not true. We'll wait.
Yes, I want to know who this authors' children are, because he is attacking my daughter together with his mouse buddies. It's only fair. Cowards hide behind anonymous handles, get someone to cover their gambling debts to attack the children of those who call their bullshit. Jane addressed the nonsense he is smearing her with, and I have nothing to add to that. You can find it for yourself. Have a great day.
Just a point of note in that the person you are talking about is an adult. There are no children involved in our discussions of YOUR involvement with "alt-right" and other nefarious agency astroturf groups.
Contrast this with your agency friends who think it is OK to stalk children and threaten them with coded messages about their school and recruit pedophiles and felons to do their dirty work. Selling pharma junk products is a dirty business I guess.
Oh yeah fantasize about my "agency" when you can't defend going after MY CHILD. You evil fucks stop at nothing. She is adult to you, but she is my daughter and MY CHILD. Forever. She is not involved in any way in my work. Yet you are so desperate that you can't defend any of your bullshit on its merit and you have to stoop to going after my child. That's because your bullshit is total bullshit. Thanks for proving you are an evil fuck. Really thank you for that.
You're a terrible liar, Sasha. Show the evidence of the author attacking your daughter? You can't, because it didn't happen, and you know it. Your only defence seems to be "they're anonymous," but you can't dispute the facts. The true coward is the one defending a fraud, Jane Ruby, who has brought harm on children.
Sasha dear, who has spoken about gambling debts or attacked Sophia?
I tremble to think about the damage you did to that poor girl, manipulating her from her youngest age. Far from me to add to that.
Your classic DARVO is most rejoicing to behold. Are you that bitter because you'll look bad with your pharma buddies to whom you said that you knew what you were doing for 3 years?
you and Jikky and a bunch of mouse trolls attacked Sophia. A bunch of you claimed she is me on Substack and X - totally false, she is not even present on the platforms. All you do is lie all day long. By the way, another success in the legal case I assisted - Kirk Moore's case was dismissed today. Shove that. Go play some horseys now....
Could you provide docket links? I imagine you're following these cases on which you're assisting closely.
I know you've been involved in many - that's one of my problems with you, the number of proceedings you contaminated with your junk.
I'm particularly interested in one which resulted in something - I don't need your clownish proceedings for communication purpose in a lost corner of Netherlands. Louis Bayliss you say ? This UK solicitor ?
I met Jane in 2022 after appearing once on Stew Peters podcast to discuss my batch variability analysis. That's the first time we met. She since left his show. I never met he in person by the way. You spent 5 days writing bullshit about Jane, and smearing me, you can do your research and find the case(s) and reporting on it. I wrote about cases I am assisting on my stack. Yes, that Lois Baylis. I have interviews with her on my substack discussing her case, you can find them there. Kenny Mauer is suing NBA, he was a senior referee there. I also have interviews with him on my stack. I was also involved in the original case for which Louis was under lawfare - trying to get the Met Police to investigate, in vain. My batch analysis data was used by Ron Johnson in his official Congressional investigation letters to HHS and pharmas. Oh yes, Leewarden is "a corner" of the NL, right, LMAO, and happens to be the only place where Bill Gates must appear in court. It's so insignificant, comparing to murdering children with RSV injections here in the US! That's a MAHA achievement to celebrate, Another attorney I am constantly helping is Warner Mendenhall, I am sure you know his name. So, you can research all this yourself. I answered your questions. Now you can answer mine.
I asked you a link & you answered "you can find them".
While I had provided you an easily clickable link myself. As you know obtaining attachments like affidavits, without the direct link, can take weeks.
You answered only one of my two questions, and just pulled a long gish-gallop attacking Malone, who has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic (aside your systematic inefficient attacks against him - about which I wonder if that's to make him sympathetic to me).
So I'll still answer one of your questions, being magnanimous.
--> My sources of income are gambling on sports outcomes thanks to stats, forensic & economic intelligence.
Your turn.
1. Why don't you even mention Craig Pardekooper who was the guy who had done the work & hadn't credited you a week before, when he first released howbad ?
2. Why don't you mention that Sophia has been injured by a vaccine years ago, when you say that you fully trusted the procedures, and among your motivations, when Screw asks you ?
3. Having had yourself a child injured because you trusted the pharmaceutical industry, why did you slander people who trusted "the vaccine" in 2022 ?
4. Why did you allow Screw Peters to claim that data had been hacked? It was VAERS data you talked about.
5. Why did Jane exit the Screw Peters show ? Was it because he went full Nazi ? Who could have thought associating with a died-suddenly ex-rapper ex-bounty hunter was a bad idea, right ?
6. You said that I wrote "bullshit about Jane", could you point me to a specific element where I said something incorrect ? You're comfortable with the fact that your friend's frauds resulted in injuring hundreds of children with opioids ?
Put back the little numbers when you answer - and use letters on your questions, so we can follow, please.
Whatever you call "abomination" is Stew Peter's video. I am not the author. So you pretending the batch variability data is "abomination" is a really dumb take. It has been since validated by numerous independent groups and published in peer review. I have written numerous articles referencing Craig Paardekpooper, written book chapters explaining our work together, and crediting him at every opportunity I have. However I AM THE FIRST AUTHOR of batch variability analysis, I FOUND IT FIRST and published on it, and Craig read my work and verified for himself. Craig and I launched the website together, he was broke and I paid for it to be hosted for a while. I didn't know Sophia was injured by vaccines until I started looking into covid shots. Yes, I trusted the government, bad me, I injured my daughter. I recognize the truth now. Try harder. I answered enough of your questions. I am not going to waste my time collecting links for you. You spend days writing smears and lies, you can try to find what you need with a search function on Substack. And you need to answer my questions, anonymous clown, paid by youknowho. Have a great day. Oh yeah, horse gambler, I knew you were a scammer, thanks for confirming that.
I can't find your affidavit anywhere in the pieces related to Lois Bayliss, whose name you don't seem to know how to spell, and who was sentenced to 32.5K fines.
I'm not sure you & I have the same definition of "achieving a result" dear. Would you have a link to the affidavit you had submitted so that its use can be assessed transparently ?
Ms Sasha… I’m a little unnerved by all I’m reading here. A flat out word war on Substack I’ve never experienced before! I’ve always enjoyed reading your material and never had any qualms with Janes podcasts, either. Together, you two helped me in my research into the scamdemic! Regardless of all that’s been written here, I’m just a regular old guy, and I like you. And no, I’m not a professional.
Anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors. That’s just a fact. This is no exception. That doesn’t mean that they are incapable of building justified cases against other bad actors. I imagine that would be a standard issue method for gaining credibility.
That is false. Furthermore it is much harder to gain credibility as an anonymous writer as we rely on facts and evidence rather than the old "I'm an ex pharma exec so listen to me" line.. when it turns out that, just like there being no such thing as a "ex fed" there is no such thing as an "ex pharma whistleblower" because of the NDAs. The only credible "ex pharma whistleblower" is the one who publishes their NDA. That is, nobody.
Technically everyone you interact with online (messaging) is anonymous. Unless ‘freedom’ proponents would rather everyone submit to government issue digital ID which would be odd as many (inc Mike) warn against such things?! Also i’ve found even when one does present facts and real evidence it’s not that popular so blaming anonymity is just another excuse to stifle debate imo. https://substack.com/@scottishcovidinquiry/note/c-134610726
Are you here to try the same line of argument than Sasha - nothing against the substance, and very little against the author - aside for smearing people who prefer to let the receipts talk than a name ...? What is it with people who made all their life's money with Pfizer & defending someone who damaged children with opioids - that's a "team Enigma" thing ..?
My motives are quite transparent for those who read me for years ; I have established bullet-proof critics against your ex-company...
.. and I have been most concerned by the state of human fertility - a topic you should know because your grotesque early claims contributed to throw legitimate concerns to the bin.
Figure of speech ; I was being polite assuming he may have actually popped to exchange on his concerns, rather than to have been sent by his handler for this terrible & backfiring containment attempt.
Asserting that “anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors” is a sweeping generalisation made without a shred of supporting evidence. It is epistemically indefensible.
By implication, your position would require us to dismiss the entire Wikileaks archive—despite the fact that its sources were deliberately anonymised to prevent retaliation. That output, much of it authenticated and widely cited, cannot be dismissed solely due to anonymity. To argue otherwise is not just ahistorical but intellectually unserious.
More broadly, if material is factually accurate, reliably preserved, and any claims made from it are properly justified, then the identity of the author is immaterial. Truth is not contingent on attribution. Anonymity and factual integrity are not in opposition.
To conflate authorial motive or concealed identity with falsehood is a basic category error. Declaring such a fallacy to be “just a fact” only compounds the error.
That this needs spelling out at all is remarkable. Your claim is so epistemically, logically, and rhetorically flawed that its assertion—without evidence, nuance, or qualification—is frankly a humiliating self-own. And coming from someone who trades on being taken seriously due to prior status or experience, it is all the more baffling.
Your logic amounts to: “This is true because I said it.” That’s not an argument; it’s circular authoritarianism. It’s the epistemic equivalent of the DoD press conference where they claimed Russia would false-flag its way into war, and when asked for evidence, simply replied: “I just gave it to you.”
No evidence, no reasoning—just assertion masquerading as fact. Matt Lee’s reply then applies equally well now: “it's not that I have a problem with the format, it's that I have a problem with your content.”
What's wrong with generalizing? It's not a sweeping generalization, and even sweeping generalizations are, in some cases, absolutely correct.
For example, gypsies insult better than anyone else. It's just a fact of evolution, bro. (this is a joke, obviously)
You are being ridiculous here and you let your emotions take the best of you.
Your appeal to ipsedixitism is unfounded. Yeadon makes a general observation that is well qualified. Not a totalizing observation, mind you. And he seeks an exception to what seems to be a general rule, as anyone who is open-minded would do.
This is not a serious or intellectually valid defence of Yeadon. It's incoherent, wholly lacking in epistemic discipline or relevance, and riddled with fallacies and misrepresentations.
1. False Premise: “It’s not a sweeping generalisation.”
“Even sweeping generalisations are, in some cases, absolutely correct.”
This is a tautological defence of generalisation-as-method, rather than a rebuttal to my critique of Yeadon’s specific claim. I did not object to generalisation in principle, but to:
the unsupported assertion that “anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors”;
the use of this claim to delegitimise evidence-based critique.
You try to shift the argument from epistemology (evidence vs. attribution) to abstract logic (are generalisations ever valid?).
**That's a category error.**
2. Racist and Incoherent Analogy
“Gypsies insult better than anyone else. It’s just a fact of evolution, bro. (this is a joke, obviously)”
This is not a joke. It is a textbook case of ethnic stereotyping disguised as humour. Even if flagged “obviously,” it attempts to normalise race-based generalisations in the midst of an epistemological discussion.
**Irrelevant and discredits you entirely.**
3. Strawman Accusation of Emotionalism
“You are being ridiculous here and you let your emotions take the best of you.”
There is no evidence of emotional reasoning in my post, structured around logical fallacies, evidentiary standards, and the category error Yeadon committed.
**You employ projection and tone-policing to dismiss content without engagement.**
4. Misuse of Latin Terminology
“Your appeal to ipsedixitism is unfounded.”
I did not commit "ipse dixit" (appeal to authority). Yeadon did. He declared his claim to be “just a fact” without support.
My critique, in contrast, was rooted in the principle that truth depends on evidence, not authorship.
**You try to reverse the accusation without understanding the term. Intellectually inept.**
5. Contradictory Framing of Yeadon’s Statement
“Yeadon makes a general observation that is well qualified. Not a totalizing observation, mind you.”
False. Yeadon said:
“Anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors.”
This is functionally totalising, and carries no qualifying evidence. It was not offered as a tentative or empirical observation, but as a rhetorical weapon to discredit the OpenVAET article wholesale.
**You employ deliberate falsehood.**
6. Rhetorical Misfire:
“What do you hold personally against Yeadon?”
This is a deflection and an ad hominem by implication, presuming my argument stems from personal animus rather than rational critique. It is disingenuous, especially in light of my consistent focus on argument structure, evidence, and public reasoning.
**Deflection via AD hominem, disingenuous.**
Roger, your reply fails on every level:
- It misrepresents my position.
- It attempts to rehabilitate a discredited generalisation through poor logic.
- It introduces a racist “joke” under the guise of argumentation.
I'm sorry but I suspended this one for a month ; it was failing at my "IQ over room temperature" test ; but if you want to pursue that discussion let me know and I'll reconsider the suspension.
A month? Flush that sock puppet down the memory hole permanently.
I responded to flag techniques that conveniently appear in lieu of the primary actor's defence of valid epistemological challenges.
Having gone from simply reading an article that confirmed things I already suspected re Ruby, this entire experience has shifted into an unexpected thumper session that's filled the desert with wormsign.
Among my many flaws I'm not comfortable with the concept of permanent suspension, perhaps is it the number of times I had to reboot accounts in 2020 to 2022.
Most of the time they forget and never come back anyway.
It's certainly been an interesting couple of days since publication ; I'm always amazed at how unprepared and amateurish they are.
Are you related to Dr. Nate Semmelweis? The microchip photos that Suzanne Humphries now says are her photos were originally published in a blog called masksaredangerous.com in January 2022. The only earlier post in the same blog was authored by Dr. Nate Semmelweis: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Matt_Shelton. It's probably a pseudonym derived from the name Ignaz Semmelweis, just like your pseudonym Iggy Semz.
So are there multiple different COVID bloggers who use a pseudonym derived from the name Ignaz Semmelweis? Or did you earlier work as one of the people behind the scenes who wrote the script for the nanobot ops?
A bio of David Hughes says that he has a degree in German studies and he lectures in security studies, and his areas of research include "psychological warfare" and the "class relations between psychological operations": https://propagandainfocus.com/our-team/.
In 2022 IJVTPR published a paper by David Hughes where he showed photos of strange objects found in vaccines by various researchers, like Carrie's hydras, Quinta Columna's carbon nanotubes, and the microchip photos that Humphries now says are her photos, and he wrote that the researchers must be on to something because several researchers on multiple continents "converge on remarkably similar findings": https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/52/288.
Catherine Austin Fitts has hosted two symposiums about the Omniwar concept coined by David Hughes. They featured presentations by David Hughes, Daniel Broudy, and Lissa Johnson. A thumbnail of the second symposium featured one of David Nixon's microchip images: https://sars2.net/pfizerstew.html#Connection_to_David_Hughes_Catherine_Austin_Fitts_and_David_Martin. In 2022 Hughes, Broudy, Kyrie, and Latypova were speakers at a symposium organized by D4CE together with CHD and Solari. Both Latypova and the nanobot crew wrote articles about their presentations that were published by Solari. In a recent interview with Solari, Suzanne Humphries said that Fitts gave her to impetus to reveal herself as the author of the microchip images from 2022: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Matt_Shelton.
This isn’t investigative logic. It’s pattern-seeking turned paranoid. If you want to make a serious point, bring primary evidence, verified identities, and a clear argument. Otherwise, this just looks like a web of speculation held together by rhetorical suggestion and pseudoscientific breadcrumbs.
"I assert this connects to this. I have no proof any of this is connected but for my writing them down in sequence in my blog that always tells me I'm right, even when scientists prove I'm not (see McKernan & McCairn's primary investigations into biophysical and genetic properties of "calamari clots - this will now trigger Henjin the sperg racist anti semite here to list lots of names of people talking about calamari clots, none of whom did any primary science with any samples, so are completely irrelevant to McKernan & McCairn).
This is pure conspiratorial innuendo masquerading as investigation. You’re drawing shaky connections between unrelated individuals based on pseudonym similarities (“Semmelweis”) and vague thematic overlaps like “psychological warfare.” That’s not evidence—it’s associative speculation.
"I create guilt by association where the associations don't even have to have any substance. This is called apophenia and I want people to believe it's credible. I have so little cognitive ability or self awareness that I don't even realise: I'm engaging in apophenia; have no evidentiary base or deductive method that supports the conclusions I draw and assert from apophenia; it's unconvincing to anyone with cognitive ability. All of this is why I have gotten no traction, attention or allegiance across the entire Covid spectrum."
Who is “Dr. Nate Semmelweis”? Are they a real person, let alone connected to anyone else you mention. Linking someone to alleged “nanobot ops” because they write about cognitive warfare is a rhetorical trick, not a factual argument. You’re also relying heavily on fringe sources like IJVTPR, which are well-known hubs of disinformation.
You constantly cite your own mentally disturbed, apophenic dirgefest website as if that's a conclusive primary evidence point rather than a collection of sequenced information that you assert is either directly linked or proves whatever you want it to prove. That's not a valid approach. "This is true because I wrote all of that down," isn't valid.
Throwing in names like David Hughes, Lissa Johnson, and Sasha Latypova doesn’t make your theory stronger—it just adds noise. None of them have demonstrated credible evidence of microchips or self-assembling nanotech in vaccines. Repeating unverified images and blogs across a small ecosystem of like-minded outlets is not convergence—it’s circular amplification.
You also have a transparently woeful method of asserting in the following manner:
-You are A.
-That's next to B in the alphabet.
-It also sounds like "J".
-B in the alphabet was the most common first letter of the names of people on my list of "People who did something I don't like."
-"J" is the shape of the hockey stick graph Al Gore claimed proved climate change.
-This is all in my website that only I ever put anything in, so that's all true.
-You must be helping all the Bs do the thing I don't like and you're pushing Al Gore's climate change (even though there is no evidence of either accusation).
I repetitively highlighted your mental illness, lack of cognitive ability and any factual or evidence based approach in McCairn's server, to the point where he agreed and kicked you out, even though it's practically impossible to get kicked out of there for being a fabulist or inept.
You continue to get no traction with your endless sperg stream that tries to push your agenda of "Covid was what the government said and all the shots work and are safe".
Thanks for coming here and exposing yourself though a zero-evidence list of fabulist hyper-associative assertions.
I don't think Nate Semmelweis is a real person, because there were only a few results when I googled for the name in double quotes, which were most about the post by masksaredangerous.com.
I think it's likely that you two are different people, but it's also plausible that you are the same person. Both of you even came up with an English nickname for the name Ignaz.
Another line of circumstantial evidence that connects you to nanobot ops is that you are connected to Kevin McCairn, who pushes the Stew op about calamari clots, which has a lot of overlap with graphene and nanobots. The journalist who broke the news about the calamari clots also brags that she broke the news about graphene oxide: https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1604355938881789952, https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1619624953036558338.
The microchip photos that Humphries now says are her photos were earlier presented by Matt Shelton in 2022. He told Maria Zeee that the photos showed nanobots and graphene oxide. McCairn was recently on Maria Zeee's show together with the star of a Stew Peters movie, where they discussed a phenomenon that was unknown until it was revealed to the world by Jane Ruby. The people who made the Stew Peters movie are now making a movie about nanobots called "DS2: Nano Sapiens".
Matt Shelton recently defended McCairn against criticism and asked someone to send their blood to McCairn: https://x.com/sussdoc/status/1903974688130564572. Shelton was credited in the Unholy Triad movies, which were directed by Wayne Crouch, who said that McCairn was connected to his group called Solution of Scientists: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Kevin_McCairns_connection_to_Solution_of_Scientists. The main theme of the videos were the mystery ORFs that were supposedly discovered by Greg Harrison, who was featured on McCairn's stream twice and who first connected McCairn to Hirschman. Tom Haviland wrote that Harrison was the "lead scientist" of a team that was analyzing the clots, and that Harrison asked Hirschman to send the clots to McCairn, and that Harrison asked McCairn to check the samples for the presence of prions.
Matt Shelton is also one of the handful of people who claims to have seen a calamari clot in the body of a living person. I believe the first two people were the anynomous ER doctor who was interviewed by Mike Adams on InfoWars through a voice changer, and Leunis van Rooyen who appeared on the Jane Ruby Show as a doctor who had removed a calamari clot from the leg of a living person (but who also talked to Ruby about graphene and snake venom). Later there also emerged Philip McMillan's cath lab whistleblower, Tom Haviland's cath lab whistleblower, McMillan's childhood friend Azzard Comrie, and Phillip Triantos who was on McCairn's stream.
In the same way that in 2022 new developments about the clots were reported by Jane Ruby and various whistleblowers are supposed to have contacted her concerning the clots, recently a similar role has been played by Philip McMillan. McMillan also pushed the disinformation story about how Greg Harrison had supposedly discovered new mystery ORFs in secret Chinese and Soviet military documents: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Philip_McMillan_and_mystery_ORFs. In one YouTube video McMillan first talked about how McCairn had found that the clots glowed in the dark, and then he did a presentation of one of Greg Harrison's AI-hallucinated documents about the ORFs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMFEGLWEXyU.
McMillan's sidekick Shankara Chetty claims that long COVID is caused by gut bacteria that were programmed to grow snake venom by SARS-CoV-2 through insertional mutagenesis (even though SARS-CoV-2 does not have reverse transcriptase which is needed for insertional mutagenesis). After Bryan Ardis and Stew Peters, Chetty was the person with the third most footage in the Watch the Water 2 film: https://sars2.net/clot2.html#Watch_the_Water_2_and_Shankara_Chetty_on_snake_venom. In the film Ardis said that he had been on Zoom calls with Chetty for three years now, and that Chetty was a "great, honest, ethical human being".
Chetty said that the counterterrorism expert Tau Braun was one of his guardian angels, and that Tau Braun told him to keep an eye on snake venom in 2021. Chetty said that he and Tau Braun were snake venom merchants. In 2022 Tau Braun told Jane Ruby that calamari clots consisted of tissue that had been programmed to grow snake venom gland by nanobots that used graphene oxide as a delivery mechanism.
When McCairn's sidekick Charles Rixey said that Chetty had been unfairly reported to his medical board, I told Rixey about how Chetty was pushing the story about snake venom, but he blocked me in response: https://x.com/henjin256/status/1936417518283006409. Two years ago, Chetty, Rixey, and McCairn were 3 of 5 speakers in an online conference hosted by McMillan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYCjFViwBWw.
Once again you’ve served up a jumbled list and called it evidence. It’s not proof; it’s classic apophenia. You can’t tell coincidence from causation or background noise from a real signal.
You did exactly what I said you’d do. You threw out an irrelevant roll-call of names and claims that have nothing to do with me, linked only by your own spiral logic. In doing so you proved my prediction right, something no self-aware person would do in public.
Run your post through ChatGPT, a tool you already use, and it would flag your basic thinking faults:
- circular reasoning
- wild associative leaps
- grand wording standing in for evidence
That’s not an insult; it’s what the pattern-matcher spits out.
You never stop to check whether what you write hangs together. People have pointed this out on plenty of forums. Still you churn out the same tired script, as if repeating it will make it true. It won’t.
Even McCairn’s server, which puts up with almost anything, showed you the door. That wasn’t censorship; it was recognition.
Engaging with you is a time sink. I’d rather lug rocks uphill or stick my head in a bonfire. Both would be more productive than acting as your involuntary audience.
Ah, there is several you. I can't really blame you, I guess. Please, don't insult anyone gratuitously on this current incarnation, if you want to keep flourishing in my comments.
The escort industry has sometimes nothing to do with "pimping" in the traditional sense of the term - they are often highly educated & pleasant individuals.
I don't care how Erin made it through life 20 years ago, or which plot she shared thinking it was valid in 2023. I don't care if people are misguided, I care if they are nefarious.
For example I know a Finnish dude who spends his days looking at demographic data yet thinks the jabs were a success - I won't be unpleasant to him just because he is obviously at best a bit retarded.
The problem with you spending your time going after good people or making comments which look out of Goebbels' textbook is that people then dismiss what you say without reviewing it.
Secondly, she was obviously trying to help & sharing something to the sagacity of the readers - on topic ; contrarily to half of your comments.
Making your insult gratuitous - as I stated.
Lastly, I understand your difficulties to interact with your fellow human beings, but it makes you come across as an utter and complete arsehole without serving your point.
So, given that you can't help yourself & double-down even if I ask kindly, see you on Henjin2048.
Dr Suzanne Humphries never spoke of nano bots or graphene. Matt Shelton visited Suzanne and persuaded her to hand over the files of her work under the guise of taking them to the police as evidence, only to go public and say anything he wanted to say. He will corroborate that he got the images from Dr Suzanne. Dr Suzanne wrote about Semmelweis in Dissolving Illusions and I happen to know that she used the name Nate Semmelwies early on (on masksaredangerous site which was created in a rush by an amateur friend of hers before covid vaccines were released when the mask issue was upsetting her) when she was anonymously talking about the images, only to later put them up on a site called lifeoftheblood, which she closed as she didn't want to keep paying for her server fees. She moved them to bitchute where they remain. Funny enough Jayne Ruby launched a surprise attack against Suzanne after the Joe Rogan podcast, where she accused Suzanne of 'coming out of nowhere'.
Look Mike , I have friends in the entertainment industry and medical folks, writers, basic human beings, who are very well known and who have anon accounts for a reason. They have family and bills to pay after they have been doxxed and fired from their jobs for many different reasons. The biggest doxxing frauds being the Bailey ,Stone crew against our control studies. So I don’t take kindly to this hubris.
You claim to be so darn independent but can’t see the forest for the dam trees.
I’m not familiar with the account you’re defensively offended by because “ they forgot your hit piece “.
Every time I see you post like this, you remind me of a 5 yr old child looking for attention. Grow up. Ruby’s a fraud, wtf are you so upset she’s being exposed for the pos she is ?
Nobody said that nanotechs researches weren't a thing, Angie, chill.
We said Sasha was pushing Nixon & Yanowitz's bullshits of it being in the jabs to poison the well & probably to damage the credibility of future concerns.
As soon as I found out Jane Ruby falsified data to push an opioid based product targeted for use in children, that was the end of her credibility. Now to read all of this, she's McFucked. A total fraud.
What an amazing journey. I note that Jane, who now spends her time on twitter trying to harass and threaten people when she isn't pushing graphene garbage (and hatching eggs) in the vaccines, with the help of her friends Astrid Stuckelberger (of the WHO) and Sasha was still recently as 2022 declared to be working for Endo pharma.
There is no data availability statement on the paper noted above, and is almost certainly unverifiable surgisphere-style "real world" data that may or may not be in the slightest bit real. However the conclusion of the study is that Xiaflex - made by the fraudulent Endo pharma (see https://young-lawgroup.com/news/endo-pharmaceuticals-opioid-475-million/ and others) - is as effective as surgical intervention. Well what a surprise.
So we have somebody convicted of fraud, working for a company convicted of fraud, publishing a paper written by a ghost writer, using unverifiable data that conveniently shows the drug made by the company they are working for is "effective".
I’m feeling a little left out. Please write a smear piece on me, with loads of links, to make it look like you’ve done real research. I’d be particularly impressed if you can track down who’s paying me, because I’m not benefiting from any of it. A motive for what I’ve been doing for five plus years would be excellent. Because every time I look, it’s because we’re being lied to on every side and being injured by intentionally harmful injections of unregulated rubbish. Anyone not fighting this & warning others with all they have is of no interest to me.
I’m intervening because over five years, nothing Sasha Latypova has said, done or written, to my knowledge, has been other than totally aligned to my work and most importantly, an honest opinion about anything she’s yet tackled. It’s a dead giveaway when sly digs are used against a person but not a single, material demonstration of something they’ve done that benefits the powers running this worldwide deception. Name one or desist.
Beautiful act of solidarity, Mike. It's inspiring, to see all these ex-pharma who spent 4 years saying absolutely nothing of substance, but trying to defend Jane.
Are you sharing Sasha's analysis of Shimabukuro that a 82% miscarriage rate was observed on v-safe?
It seems to me you are attacking low hanging fruit. If so, you are doing a disservice to your own credibility.
The Shimabukuro saga is very interesting. I like contrasting the methods of myth-making from Europeans vis-à-vis Asians. We can learn a lot more abouot sociology from studying the dark arts of marketing than by direct study of the "culture" which can be a very inaccessible concept.
But, again, even if the conclusion was wrong, it's difficult to leap from the error or lie of one person to conclude that another people (that you are obsessed with) are liars. That insinuation of a necessary and sufficient connection with no legs to stand on, means to me that you are not a good quality debater or a sincere researcher. In other words, you look like an activist to me. Possibly, a chaos agent. I may revise that provisional conclusion in the future, but so far, your rhetorical level is very lacking.
Wow! That was a fast way to accuse others of doing the same that you are doing.
Just remain calm, dude. If your post is any good the less reactive you are the best it would look. You just have to be zen about it and avoid personal attacks. Otherwise, you are undermining your own credibility, like I said.
Now I am inclined to think you are smearing Jane Ruby (whom I have never liked, btw) because of your emotional reaction.
That's how it works: if you let yourself be dragged to fallacies, no bystander will spend any minute looking into your real argument.
What do you want? Emphasize that. If you want readers to look, then do not abuse your readers with bullshit. Focus on your argument.
This article IS NOT about Sasha, it's about Jane Ruby. Why have you never in these comments about the article said anything about Jane Ruby? Why have you only mentioned Sasha? And why is almost all of your message about you? You're not a subject of this article at all, so inserting yourself as a deflective, self-asserted moral reference point and epistemic referee appears **obtuse, irrelevant to the content of the article, and self-aggrandising.**
Given the article isn't about Sasha, why has she gone from initiating dismissal, smear and ad hominem around the article and its author, to then claiming it's about her?
This is completely false framing.
Where's Jane Ruby, the subject of the article?
Why have you deployed the following methodology:
1. Preemptive delegitimization of the article’s methodology as “smear.”
That's rhetorical inversion of victimhood--standard among actors seeking to frame criticism as persecution.
2. Claiming motiveless virtue:
*“I’m not benefiting from any of it… I’m not being paid.”*
This appeal to moral purity, used here to assert your own credibility to legitimize your comments and Sasha (and Jane) by association, add your overall defence of them.
3. Binary Moral Framing
*“Anyone not fighting this & warning others with all they have is of no interest to me.”*
This imposes an absolutist dichotomy: either you are fighting “the deception” (as defined by Mike’s framework), or you are morally irrelevant, which is an indirect total dismissal of anything Mike asserts doesn't fit his framework. However, this begs the question, why is Mike commenting here on this article that according to him “is of no interest to me”?
4. Vicarious validation of Latypova’s credibility
*“Over five years, nothing Sasha Latypova has said, done or written… has been other than totally aligned to my work… an honest opinion about anything she’s yet tackled.”*
Granting her vicarious legitimacy by leveraging your own perceived integrity within the Covid narrative: “I assert she's pristine because I said so and I hold myself in high regard.” This is argument from alignment, not evidence. “She agrees with me” is not a meaningful defence of credibility. Your claim of “honest opinion” is asserted, not demonstrated.
5. Poisoning the well
*“It’s a dead giveaway when sly digs are used … but not a single, material demonstration of something they’ve done that benefits the powers…”*
Classic poisoning the well: suggesting critique is invalid unless it proves a subject has actively “benefited the powers running this worldwide deception,” a threshold that is both nebulous and unfalsifiable. By this logic, anyone opposing Mike (or Sasha or Jane) must show explicit alignment or desist.
6. Challenge without engagement
*“Name one [thing she’s done to benefit the powers] or desist.”*
Attempts to reverse the burden of proof, demanding critics meet a bar of “material demonstration” while ignoring the documented evidence outlined in OpenVAET’s investigations e.g., publication authorship patterns, platform coordination, or obfuscation of professional history.
NOTE: This article is about Jane Ruby, so why the excessive and unrelated pre-emptive defence of Sasha Latypova, about whom the article says nothing of any evidenced substance other than referencing a supposed “trail of lies” while alluding to a detailed future article?
Your intervention looks to me like a narrative consolidation move, to pre-emptively delegitimise a potential future article on Latypova by:
- Mocking the investigative framework (“real research”);
Mike "I’m intervening because over five years, nothing Sasha Latypova has said, done or written, to my knowledge, has been other than totally aligned to my work and most importantly, an honest opinion about anything she’s yet tackled. It’s a dead giveaway when sly digs are used against a person but not a single, material demonstration of something they’ve done that benefits the powers running this worldwide deception. Name one or desist. "
Since Sasha has blocked me since my initial interaction w Doc Malik's post interview w Mark Kulacz about opioid crisis, where ugly character assassination & pedophile accusations first caught my attention and reply, her remarks can only be seen when others post screenshots. Nothing says truthful like blocking critics with no social media footprint. Very little is as vile as calling someone a criminal abuser of children especially when the basis for that is Mark & Jay's criticism of Sasha's minor child videos featured on Alex Jones. Still stinks like week old fish w zero biology critiques & source you know.
Sasha " Thanks! my fan club is numerous and very diverse, spanning the rainbow of clowns from Robert Malone and MAHA apologists to mentally ill child predators JJ Couey/Housatonic duo to the PCR pushing fraudsters like Jikky/Arkmedic, and the Kevins, to nanotechnology nutjobs, to no-virus trolls,"
I will name one Mike. Right back when they first found GO in the shot, she ridiculed a researcher who did. And then when challenged by myself and AI, she used ad hominem as a rebut, and finally faded. Common Mike, tell me because Cole tested 100 vials out of 13 billion vials , and found no GO, there isn’t any in those 13 billion shots. ( that is the most ridiculous position taken by any person pretending to be intelligent) Forget the fact that different vials are filled with different components, forget the fact MANY researchers have found it. Forget the fact it serves a purpose with its self assembling nano structure and its potential use as RF transmitters. Forget the CEO of Nokia has already stated that “smart phones will be obsolete by 2030. The tech will be in our bodies”
If there is anything the globalists want more than injectable tracking, I don’t know what it is, because they have everything else as we speak ( pandemic treaties, CBDC, soft mindless compliant populations) .
Common now Mike, try to dismiss the GO as conspiracy theory. When it is already obviously a conspiracy fact. And when it is currently in use for drug delivery …
Oh, .... this is simply precious. I'd post this url in comments on Jane's Rumble posts, .... but I've been permanently banned from commenting there. Must have been something I said. lol
She did a show on the fiat situation and had a guest on to talk for an hour about GOLD. I posited that it seemed strange, this big push, for several years now, to get the general public to put all their beans into physical gold. What If?? What if TPTB are only interested in taking every last cent possible, and the government once again outlaws possessing gold just like they did in the 1930's ?? Of course, her guest for that hour long commercial, was also A SPONSOR of hers, a gold SELLER. Can't imagine why I got banned. Hahahahahah !!!!
You haven't noticed this about Jane Ruby who is so embedded in every federal agency pay op she even got herself embroiled in the "proud boys" operation... But we have to listen to you and Sasha spout about Malone constantly.
I would like to see where & how I have supported Malone, with whom I have absolutely no relation, in my asking of a receipt.
The Breggins, Ruby & others like Screw Peters yes. I don't know how the Breggins were in that picture, but I would be very cautious of anyone associated with Screw Peters & Ruby. The trial wasn't serious and was dismissed by lack of proper jurisdiction anyway, it's not like Malone's lawyers tried very hard.
Do you have another pathetic insinuation or display of incompetence to make ?
You cite Malone's writing. Who would trust a guy who claims to be an inventor of a vaccine and took that vaccine so he could travel? Didn't you notice that his wife, whom he calls Dr. Jill, got her Ph.D. from a diploma mill institution. Why would you call a human being "Screw"?
Screw Peters is a neo-nazi ex-rapper ex-bounty hunter whose last valuable thought was in his mother's belly. Everything about him is between pathetic & outrageous & his job is to shit in people's brain. So I'm calling him "Screw". If you're not happy with that I'm sure there are plenty of Substack you can comment on.
I quoted Malone's writing as being the one who broke the news of Ruby's involvement in the Indivior scandal. It has the merit of being true & accurate.
You seem deeply confused. Could you try to articulate an argument which doesn't consist in a vague smearing ? (Your next beyond useless comment will result in a month ban as I'm not sure to like you at all)
Always go back to the fundamental principle "what have I learned thanks to ______?"
Then once you have realized you have learnt nothing valuable from someone in 3 years, start looking at what they push, and with who they interact (or who they avoid).
Sasha Latypova is a constant well poisoner who, when she isn't broadcasting crap like the 82% miscarriage rate designed to damage the credibility of the fertility concerns, is attacking genuine opponents to the propaganda. She talks about studies she hasn't even read properly like she had any expertise.
Confer here for the breakdown of "her work" on Shimabukuro :
Yes. Borje Darpo. Co-author and Sasha's medical director. Karolinska institute, home of the mRNA vaccine pseudoscience. He runs QTc software and analyses for pharma companies to get their crap products through fast track pathways on behalf of Sasha's company. Additional ties to Boston Consulting Group, Boston Analysis group, NDA with Pfizer etc etc. Full time job is doing interviews with crackpots to undermine legal cases that she then injects herself into presumably to crash them. Like Brook Jackson's case.
Thank you. Jane, not a doctor, has come after so many of my colleagues and me, including members of the so-called disinformation dozen that I’m in w Robert F Kennedy, who she attacks, Dr. mercola, who she attacks, sayer ji, who just shared this who she attacks and did you see the article that was just posted by a well-known MDPHD yesterday to their audience? It was about a woman who worked with Epstein and they called her “Samantha”. But the daily mail accidentally called her Jane one time in the article and she was a dead ringer for Jane not a doctor that you’re right about. I don’t know if I can post links here, but I’ve posted it on my x page.
My bad, as I stated I'm uncomfortable with permanent bans, but you're congenitally unable to behave, between your hatred of women & Jews. Being on the spectrum isn't a blank check to be a perpetual moron, you know.
Jane has been associated with Mike Adams and Alex Jones. She's into chemtrails as well as various other issues designed to convince us that "they are trying to poison you." While this may be true, I found her style to be a bit abrasive and careless, so did not enjoy her interviews.
I see her as a kind of "loose cannon," kind of like Laura Loomer. They are trying to make their way through a world they really don't understand that well with skills that may in some ways be sub-par. But this is true for so many of us.
Their willingness to attack others active in "the movement," though, is alarming. On the one hand it makes them look like fanatics. And on the other hand, it suggests the possibility of outside influence working through them to create discord and some degree of chaos. We can only expect these attempts to increase. Those who have been involved with these subjects for many years have seen this pattern play out many times. It is part of the risk you take, one could say, for pursuing the truth.
Yes. I do agree with Sasha L. that voting to push RSV shots was the wrong move for all kids going forward, that is huge. I also believe Dr. Malone had no nefarious intent in voting yah, he based his decision on the presentations provided, which were incomplete. The mistake was in voting at all. The ACIP should not be voting based on biased information presented by the CDC or whoever. There should be a time lag of a few days, where the information is sent to the members, so they can review and discover biases and gaps, and then come to the meeting well-armed to participate in informed voting. Retsef from MIT erred on the side of caution which is always the ethical thing to do when unsure about a product that is being recommended for children.
I am not too fast to judge any of these people. They have invaded the - what? - hornet's nest - and have the touchy task of getting rid of the hornets without being too badly stung. We are not clear yet on how deep (or far up) the evil, deceit and treachery reaches. They could be attempting what is factually a very dangerous job.
Jane Ruby also put her Diploma mill degree from Kennedy Western University on her affidavit used in a court case . It's on the first page that is the image she used on her website. When you download her affidavit the first page is omitted. She's sneaky. Jane Ruby also was accused on X of being a con when her and Laura Loomer ran the Stewart for Congress campaign. Ruby furniture went bankrupt about a year ago or so. Reading the comments, many people claim to have lost their money and never received their furniture.
Another odd thing is that Ruby did not list her doctorate degrees in he bio attached to a pleading she submitted in a C19 case. She listed two masters degrees but no doctorates.
PS - I had downloaded it originally in October 2021 and just now looked it up again. The Affidavit version on her website now includes "two earned doctoral degrees" whereas the copy I downloaded before did not. It would be worth finding the docketed court filing and seeing it. Of note, I could not find the referenced CV online. The version I had downloaded in October 2021 is still online and can be found at this link.
Look at the IMAGE of the affidavit on her website. The first page in the affidavit is NOT in the download. The first page is the IMAGE (photo). This was done for a reason, to hide the first page of the affidavit.
Interesting point. It's there now, but the language in the image and the current download on her website differ regarding her alleged doctorate degrees. The pagination on the two versions on her website also differs as a result of these differences. The font spacing changes from the foregoing text in all 3 versions beginning at paragraph 5. The image contains cursory doctorate assertions in paragraph 5 but the current version on her website lists them in greater detail in paragraph 6. The original version online did not claim any doctorates at all. It looks like she filed her alleged Affidavit in "Comirnaty" litigation which could be tracked down. It would be interesting to see her docketed filing, the CV she attached to it, and if the documents were ever amended. Curious.
I found Ruby's Affidavit. It was attached as Exh 17 to the Complaint in Coker v Austin, 3:21-01211, ND FL filed October 2021. It mirrors the original version online which does not list doctorate degrees in the narrative section, likely because they are not medical doctorates. Her CV states she got a BS in Nursing from Alfred U in 1988, an MS in Nursing from U of Rochester in 1992, an EdD from U of Rochester in 2000, a PhD in Psychology from Kennedy Western U in 2004, and an MS in Health Economics in 2014 from the Barcelona School of Management. Her CV states she is licensed as a Nurse Practitioner and an RN in NY and an RN in OH.
Dr Malone, great and informative article. Just be careful as that Laure Loomer is a real, as the kids use to say, wack job. I do not understand why she has the ear of our President but as her previous actions have shown she is a real vindictive person and most likely would turn on someone on a dime if she thought it would in some way benefit herself. Also the subject of your article, how do these people get serious jobs with the pharmaceutical industry with degrees from on-line universities? Pharma pays really well and you would think they would only want the best from the best schools. Anyway always enjoy your work and I hope the heat wave blanketing Virginia horse county has not left your mounts breathless in the shade.
They don't get real jobs. On her research profile Ruby is affiliated with Reckitt as "medical affairs". This is a PR job, used to indoctrinate doctors into prescribing their drugs and heading off adverse reports from doctors and scientists.
Interesting threads. I followed the links appended to your report, and found among them archived posts of Mrs. Ruby sock-puppeting DrJaneRuby to Mike Cernovich.
There's no way that's not suss.
So, until I have some good reason to investigate all the personalities involved, I'll check out any data you share with Dr. Malone and ignore Mrs. Latypova.
Anyone connected with Stew "snake-venom-in-the-water-Peters is best avoided. I remember reading Dr Malone's article which confirmed my suspicions. What really irks me is that MAGA is losing good-hearted people to these charlatans and may never return to the fight due to let-downs, disappointments and lies.
"...that case was dismissed based on venue by an elderly VA judge who decided that I needed to sue Ruby in her state of residence, not in VA Federal court."
Smells like a diversity of citizenship ruling - Article III. I would like to see this "judge" oath of office.
If it is a valid oath "So help me God." not "SO HELP ME GOD." I would really like to get that on file. What year? I want to isolate when Article III was abandoned for administrative arbitration disguised as Judicial Branch.
P.S. No PACER hits for any state - "robert malone v. jane ruby". Scrubbed clean? That is a federal felony too. One lie after another...
Thank you. Anybody interested in seeing his oath can request it FOIAOnline from the Department of Justice. He is a CLINTON nominee so I already know it is a deviant oath. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/moon-norman-k
Not to build any false hope but TRUMP has nominated several Florida "judges" for various Right-leaning postures during extensive lawfare there. The odds of finding an award might be looking into academically. Without judicial officers though, and walking into a den of criminal impersonation, I cannot offer any hope.
Like I said, I am working on it. Rectification of Judiciary and retooling global central banking. The Fed pretending to lose money allegedly owed to the US Treasury is accelerating things quite a bit. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImX1BSMHdYb3NwcTA
Looking closer, MOON avoided Article III - Original Jurisdiction by ruling that RUBY was beyond jurisdiction her being in Florida and MALONE in Virginia. Had MOON been capable of ruling so, he would have simply decided if Virginia law applied, or Florida law. If Florida then the case would be remanded to Florida.
I cut my teeth about Redemption on this Libel in Review process: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImN2EyZTM2MmMtMDBjOC00ZTRiLWI4NDEtODU3MGE3MjUyYjNm My friend, more an uninvited mentor (32nd Degree Mason) was dismayed when "Judge" Wiley Young DANIEL (Denver) would not dawn his Article III cap and rule if the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was Colorado or Federal jurisdiction. The NOFTL however was removed from the county clerk and recorder's index. That is just wrong. Released? Maybe but Dissappeared? There is no process to unfile things like that. Corrupt.
Idiotic but funny. Thanks! my fan club is numerous and very diverse, spanning the rainbow of clowns from Robert Malone and MAHA apologists to mentally ill child predators JJ Couey/Housatonic duo to the PCR pushing fraudsters like Jikky/Arkmedic, and the Kevins, to nanotechnology nutjobs, to no-virus trolls, to ... well, I don't know what particular brand of troll VAET is, but of course they are anonymous, duh (because they are brave undercover fighters, you must understand!)
Thanks for your love and entertainment that you work so hard to provide for me. This must have taken weeks of work! I appreciate the effort that you put in writing sheer nonsense and fabricating so much bullshit. I don't own a TV, so you are invaluable source of retarded comedy.
Hi Sasha !
Glad you liked it !
It just took 5 days part time, not that much effort, don't worry. Nobody with half a brain takes Jane seriously, but it's useful to have a reference on her to talk about you.
Where did you guys met by the way, was it the iCardiac days ?
The Gigaspiral brothers are also my fans, but the difference is that they avoid me - while you're a "target" for them. They can't be wrong on "who is nefarious" every time, a broken clock is right twice a day.
For the rest you named as your "fans" the Kevins (who both have made more than valuable contributions to the field), Arkmedic - same thing, and Robert Malone (current ACIP member). While you're as useful to the anti-vaccine cause as a fart in the elevator.
I'm not surprised you never heard about me - my work is kinda fundamental on the Pfizer trial, which is one of your topics of "expertise", so of course you haven't heard about me 😂
I'll ask you the same thing I had asked on Twitter ; can you quote me one legal proceeding, somewhere in the world, which successfully used your expertise for something, please ..?
There are several legal proceedings which use my research and Katherine Watt's research - several CHD cases, Dr. Kirk Moore's defense, Kenny Maurer's defense, Louis Bayliss defense (successfully). I am an expert witness in the case against Bill Gates, Albert Bourla and several Dutch state officials that is currently ongoing. There was another expert witness together with me - Francis Boyle, but it looks like he was murdered. It is an important case after all. What have you done, brave anonymous freedom fighter patriot? Which legal cases are using you as an expert witness? Which legal cases is Robert Malone assisting? Oh, and btw, every baby that dies from RSV shot and yesterday's approved Moderna shot - it's children's blood on his hands. So, by all means, keep kissing his arse, it's working.
I am so interested why you spend a whole workweek!!! working on attacking and smearing people while hiding your identity.
What is your source of income?
We need to see you CV and tax returns.
Who are you married to? Ex spouses?
Who are your children (so that Couey, Housatonic and every offended nutjob can trash them continuously, too)
Is this VAET thing one person or a group?
Where are you located?
Who are your sponsors?
How can anyone take anything you write seriously, beats me.
I guess your calculations of '5 days part time' is somehow a 'full working week,' is as good as your 82% miscarriage calculations.
Let me get this straight. You want to know who this authors children are, so that they can be attacked. You're not exactly showing yourself in a good light here, Sasha.
What do you have to say about Jane Ruby’s involvement in the Indivior fraud? Since you're here saying everything is fabricated, prove it's not true. We'll wait.
Yes, I want to know who this authors' children are, because he is attacking my daughter together with his mouse buddies. It's only fair. Cowards hide behind anonymous handles, get someone to cover their gambling debts to attack the children of those who call their bullshit. Jane addressed the nonsense he is smearing her with, and I have nothing to add to that. You can find it for yourself. Have a great day.
Just a point of note in that the person you are talking about is an adult. There are no children involved in our discussions of YOUR involvement with "alt-right" and other nefarious agency astroturf groups.
Contrast this with your agency friends who think it is OK to stalk children and threaten them with coded messages about their school and recruit pedophiles and felons to do their dirty work. Selling pharma junk products is a dirty business I guess.
Oh yeah fantasize about my "agency" when you can't defend going after MY CHILD. You evil fucks stop at nothing. She is adult to you, but she is my daughter and MY CHILD. Forever. She is not involved in any way in my work. Yet you are so desperate that you can't defend any of your bullshit on its merit and you have to stoop to going after my child. That's because your bullshit is total bullshit. Thanks for proving you are an evil fuck. Really thank you for that.
You're a terrible liar, Sasha. Show the evidence of the author attacking your daughter? You can't, because it didn't happen, and you know it. Your only defence seems to be "they're anonymous," but you can't dispute the facts. The true coward is the one defending a fraud, Jane Ruby, who has brought harm on children.
he and Armkedic/Jikky attacked my daughter because they are scum. You are scum too. Have a great day.
Sasha dear, who has spoken about gambling debts or attacked Sophia?
I tremble to think about the damage you did to that poor girl, manipulating her from her youngest age. Far from me to add to that.
Your classic DARVO is most rejoicing to behold. Are you that bitter because you'll look bad with your pharma buddies to whom you said that you knew what you were doing for 3 years?
you and Jikky and a bunch of mouse trolls attacked Sophia. A bunch of you claimed she is me on Substack and X - totally false, she is not even present on the platforms. All you do is lie all day long. By the way, another success in the legal case I assisted - Kirk Moore's case was dismissed today. Shove that. Go play some horseys now....
I am not able to find your witness statement or your name as a witness for the defence in US vs Michael Kirk Moore
Case 2:23-cr-00010-HCN-JCB Document 362 does not contain your name.
Could you provide docket links? I imagine you're following these cases on which you're assisting closely.
I know you've been involved in many - that's one of my problems with you, the number of proceedings you contaminated with your junk.
I'm particularly interested in one which resulted in something - I don't need your clownish proceedings for communication purpose in a lost corner of Netherlands. Louis Bayliss you say ? This UK solicitor ?
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/362480/
Prove what you say for once, please.
My work has been used in multiple (ongoing) proceedings, yes, of course. For closed ones, for example the trial by Ican to secure the Moderna docs.
https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/028-Plaintiffs-Reply-in-Support-of-Production-Schedule-2023-04-12.pdf
I don't see where I have "kissed" any ass. Why do you bombard an anon of questions while you haven't answered my question on how you met Jane ..?
I met Jane in 2022 after appearing once on Stew Peters podcast to discuss my batch variability analysis. That's the first time we met. She since left his show. I never met he in person by the way. You spent 5 days writing bullshit about Jane, and smearing me, you can do your research and find the case(s) and reporting on it. I wrote about cases I am assisting on my stack. Yes, that Lois Baylis. I have interviews with her on my substack discussing her case, you can find them there. Kenny Mauer is suing NBA, he was a senior referee there. I also have interviews with him on my stack. I was also involved in the original case for which Louis was under lawfare - trying to get the Met Police to investigate, in vain. My batch analysis data was used by Ron Johnson in his official Congressional investigation letters to HHS and pharmas. Oh yes, Leewarden is "a corner" of the NL, right, LMAO, and happens to be the only place where Bill Gates must appear in court. It's so insignificant, comparing to murdering children with RSV injections here in the US! That's a MAHA achievement to celebrate, Another attorney I am constantly helping is Warner Mendenhall, I am sure you know his name. So, you can research all this yourself. I answered your questions. Now you can answer mine.
PS. Here, I make the search for "corner of NL" case for you easier: https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1942572550879338964
Why would Warner Mendenhall involve you in a highly confidential legal team?
You have no legal or scientific credentials.
Are you there to find out what they are doing and prime the other side?
Does Brook know you are still affiliated with the Karolinska?
This abomination so. https://rumble.com/vs59wj-live-hackers-reveal-deadly-jab-lot-numbers-horrific-pfizer-teen-trial-data-.html
OK.
I asked you a link & you answered "you can find them".
While I had provided you an easily clickable link myself. As you know obtaining attachments like affidavits, without the direct link, can take weeks.
You answered only one of my two questions, and just pulled a long gish-gallop attacking Malone, who has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic (aside your systematic inefficient attacks against him - about which I wonder if that's to make him sympathetic to me).
So I'll still answer one of your questions, being magnanimous.
--> My sources of income are gambling on sports outcomes thanks to stats, forensic & economic intelligence.
Your turn.
1. Why don't you even mention Craig Pardekooper who was the guy who had done the work & hadn't credited you a week before, when he first released howbad ?
2. Why don't you mention that Sophia has been injured by a vaccine years ago, when you say that you fully trusted the procedures, and among your motivations, when Screw asks you ?
3. Having had yourself a child injured because you trusted the pharmaceutical industry, why did you slander people who trusted "the vaccine" in 2022 ?
4. Why did you allow Screw Peters to claim that data had been hacked? It was VAERS data you talked about.
5. Why did Jane exit the Screw Peters show ? Was it because he went full Nazi ? Who could have thought associating with a died-suddenly ex-rapper ex-bounty hunter was a bad idea, right ?
6. You said that I wrote "bullshit about Jane", could you point me to a specific element where I said something incorrect ? You're comfortable with the fact that your friend's frauds resulted in injuring hundreds of children with opioids ?
Put back the little numbers when you answer - and use letters on your questions, so we can follow, please.
Whatever you call "abomination" is Stew Peter's video. I am not the author. So you pretending the batch variability data is "abomination" is a really dumb take. It has been since validated by numerous independent groups and published in peer review. I have written numerous articles referencing Craig Paardekpooper, written book chapters explaining our work together, and crediting him at every opportunity I have. However I AM THE FIRST AUTHOR of batch variability analysis, I FOUND IT FIRST and published on it, and Craig read my work and verified for himself. Craig and I launched the website together, he was broke and I paid for it to be hosted for a while. I didn't know Sophia was injured by vaccines until I started looking into covid shots. Yes, I trusted the government, bad me, I injured my daughter. I recognize the truth now. Try harder. I answered enough of your questions. I am not going to waste my time collecting links for you. You spend days writing smears and lies, you can try to find what you need with a search function on Substack. And you need to answer my questions, anonymous clown, paid by youknowho. Have a great day. Oh yeah, horse gambler, I knew you were a scammer, thanks for confirming that.
It's appears to be all documented facts about Jane Ruby Sasha or should I say Alexandra shows no evidence that it's bullshit.
Hi again Sasha,
I can't find your affidavit anywhere in the pieces related to Lois Bayliss, whose name you don't seem to know how to spell, and who was sentenced to 32.5K fines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20241108155657/https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/more-good-news-to-report-lois-bayliss
I'm not sure you & I have the same definition of "achieving a result" dear. Would you have a link to the affidavit you had submitted so that its use can be assessed transparently ?
Ms Sasha… I’m a little unnerved by all I’m reading here. A flat out word war on Substack I’ve never experienced before! I’ve always enjoyed reading your material and never had any qualms with Janes podcasts, either. Together, you two helped me in my research into the scamdemic! Regardless of all that’s been written here, I’m just a regular old guy, and I like you. And no, I’m not a professional.
liked ;-)
07/12/25: Your call is very important to us.
Anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors. That’s just a fact. This is no exception. That doesn’t mean that they are incapable of building justified cases against other bad actors. I imagine that would be a standard issue method for gaining credibility.
That is false. Furthermore it is much harder to gain credibility as an anonymous writer as we rely on facts and evidence rather than the old "I'm an ex pharma exec so listen to me" line.. when it turns out that, just like there being no such thing as a "ex fed" there is no such thing as an "ex pharma whistleblower" because of the NDAs. The only credible "ex pharma whistleblower" is the one who publishes their NDA. That is, nobody.
Technically everyone you interact with online (messaging) is anonymous. Unless ‘freedom’ proponents would rather everyone submit to government issue digital ID which would be odd as many (inc Mike) warn against such things?! Also i’ve found even when one does present facts and real evidence it’s not that popular so blaming anonymity is just another excuse to stifle debate imo. https://substack.com/@scottishcovidinquiry/note/c-134610726
I was expecting an adjustment to his commentary from Mike himself but he, as has happened before, likes to drop a bomb and then scurry away.
To the Cayman Islands, probably.
🎯
Hi Mike,
Are you here to try the same line of argument than Sasha - nothing against the substance, and very little against the author - aside for smearing people who prefer to let the receipts talk than a name ...? What is it with people who made all their life's money with Pfizer & defending someone who damaged children with opioids - that's a "team Enigma" thing ..?
My motives are quite transparent for those who read me for years ; I have established bullet-proof critics against your ex-company...
https://openvaet.substack.com/p/pfizerbiontech-c4591001-trial-audit
.. and I have been most concerned by the state of human fertility - a topic you should know because your grotesque early claims contributed to throw legitimate concerns to the bin.
"Ex" company? Lol
Figure of speech ; I was being polite assuming he may have actually popped to exchange on his concerns, rather than to have been sent by his handler for this terrible & backfiring containment attempt.
"nothing against the substance"
"aside for smearing people who prefer to let the receipts talk than a name ..."
Those who eyes to see and ears to hear are few and far between.
Mike,
Asserting that “anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors” is a sweeping generalisation made without a shred of supporting evidence. It is epistemically indefensible.
By implication, your position would require us to dismiss the entire Wikileaks archive—despite the fact that its sources were deliberately anonymised to prevent retaliation. That output, much of it authenticated and widely cited, cannot be dismissed solely due to anonymity. To argue otherwise is not just ahistorical but intellectually unserious.
More broadly, if material is factually accurate, reliably preserved, and any claims made from it are properly justified, then the identity of the author is immaterial. Truth is not contingent on attribution. Anonymity and factual integrity are not in opposition.
To conflate authorial motive or concealed identity with falsehood is a basic category error. Declaring such a fallacy to be “just a fact” only compounds the error.
That this needs spelling out at all is remarkable. Your claim is so epistemically, logically, and rhetorically flawed that its assertion—without evidence, nuance, or qualification—is frankly a humiliating self-own. And coming from someone who trades on being taken seriously due to prior status or experience, it is all the more baffling.
Your logic amounts to: “This is true because I said it.” That’s not an argument; it’s circular authoritarianism. It’s the epistemic equivalent of the DoD press conference where they claimed Russia would false-flag its way into war, and when asked for evidence, simply replied: “I just gave it to you.”
No evidence, no reasoning—just assertion masquerading as fact. Matt Lee’s reply then applies equally well now: “it's not that I have a problem with the format, it's that I have a problem with your content.”
https://youtu.be/6Pd53ySAipM
What's wrong with generalizing? It's not a sweeping generalization, and even sweeping generalizations are, in some cases, absolutely correct.
For example, gypsies insult better than anyone else. It's just a fact of evolution, bro. (this is a joke, obviously)
You are being ridiculous here and you let your emotions take the best of you.
Your appeal to ipsedixitism is unfounded. Yeadon makes a general observation that is well qualified. Not a totalizing observation, mind you. And he seeks an exception to what seems to be a general rule, as anyone who is open-minded would do.
So your argument is not acceptable.
What do you hold personally against Yeadon?
This is not a serious or intellectually valid defence of Yeadon. It's incoherent, wholly lacking in epistemic discipline or relevance, and riddled with fallacies and misrepresentations.
1. False Premise: “It’s not a sweeping generalisation.”
“Even sweeping generalisations are, in some cases, absolutely correct.”
This is a tautological defence of generalisation-as-method, rather than a rebuttal to my critique of Yeadon’s specific claim. I did not object to generalisation in principle, but to:
the unsupported assertion that “anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors”;
the use of this claim to delegitimise evidence-based critique.
You try to shift the argument from epistemology (evidence vs. attribution) to abstract logic (are generalisations ever valid?).
**That's a category error.**
2. Racist and Incoherent Analogy
“Gypsies insult better than anyone else. It’s just a fact of evolution, bro. (this is a joke, obviously)”
This is not a joke. It is a textbook case of ethnic stereotyping disguised as humour. Even if flagged “obviously,” it attempts to normalise race-based generalisations in the midst of an epistemological discussion.
**Irrelevant and discredits you entirely.**
3. Strawman Accusation of Emotionalism
“You are being ridiculous here and you let your emotions take the best of you.”
There is no evidence of emotional reasoning in my post, structured around logical fallacies, evidentiary standards, and the category error Yeadon committed.
**You employ projection and tone-policing to dismiss content without engagement.**
4. Misuse of Latin Terminology
“Your appeal to ipsedixitism is unfounded.”
I did not commit "ipse dixit" (appeal to authority). Yeadon did. He declared his claim to be “just a fact” without support.
My critique, in contrast, was rooted in the principle that truth depends on evidence, not authorship.
**You try to reverse the accusation without understanding the term. Intellectually inept.**
5. Contradictory Framing of Yeadon’s Statement
“Yeadon makes a general observation that is well qualified. Not a totalizing observation, mind you.”
False. Yeadon said:
“Anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors.”
This is functionally totalising, and carries no qualifying evidence. It was not offered as a tentative or empirical observation, but as a rhetorical weapon to discredit the OpenVAET article wholesale.
**You employ deliberate falsehood.**
6. Rhetorical Misfire:
“What do you hold personally against Yeadon?”
This is a deflection and an ad hominem by implication, presuming my argument stems from personal animus rather than rational critique. It is disingenuous, especially in light of my consistent focus on argument structure, evidence, and public reasoning.
**Deflection via AD hominem, disingenuous.**
Roger, your reply fails on every level:
- It misrepresents my position.
- It attempts to rehabilitate a discredited generalisation through poor logic.
- It introduces a racist “joke” under the guise of argumentation.
- It misunderstands the terminology it invokes.
- It ends with a veiled accusation of bias.
I'm sorry but I suspended this one for a month ; it was failing at my "IQ over room temperature" test ; but if you want to pursue that discussion let me know and I'll reconsider the suspension.
A month? Flush that sock puppet down the memory hole permanently.
I responded to flag techniques that conveniently appear in lieu of the primary actor's defence of valid epistemological challenges.
Having gone from simply reading an article that confirmed things I already suspected re Ruby, this entire experience has shifted into an unexpected thumper session that's filled the desert with wormsign.
Among my many flaws I'm not comfortable with the concept of permanent suspension, perhaps is it the number of times I had to reboot accounts in 2020 to 2022.
Most of the time they forget and never come back anyway.
It's certainly been an interesting couple of days since publication ; I'm always amazed at how unprepared and amateurish they are.
Are you related to Dr. Nate Semmelweis? The microchip photos that Suzanne Humphries now says are her photos were originally published in a blog called masksaredangerous.com in January 2022. The only earlier post in the same blog was authored by Dr. Nate Semmelweis: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Matt_Shelton. It's probably a pseudonym derived from the name Ignaz Semmelweis, just like your pseudonym Iggy Semz.
So are there multiple different COVID bloggers who use a pseudonym derived from the name Ignaz Semmelweis? Or did you earlier work as one of the people behind the scenes who wrote the script for the nanobot ops?
You often write about psychology, and the latest post in your Substack is about cognitive warfare: https://veryslowthinking.substack.com/p/cognitive-warfare-an-introduction. It's reminiscent of the nanobot propagandist crew of Daniel Broudy, David Hughes, Valerie Kyrie, and Lissa Johnson, who are all experts in psychology or propaganda research, and who write about psychological warfare. Kyrie and Johnson both wrote their PhD thesis in psychology on the topic of manipulation of reality perception: https://sars2.net/pfizerstew.html#Connection_to_David_Hughes_Catherine_Austin_Fitts_and_David_Martin.
A bio of David Hughes says that he has a degree in German studies and he lectures in security studies, and his areas of research include "psychological warfare" and the "class relations between psychological operations": https://propagandainfocus.com/our-team/.
In 2022 IJVTPR published a paper by David Hughes where he showed photos of strange objects found in vaccines by various researchers, like Carrie's hydras, Quinta Columna's carbon nanotubes, and the microchip photos that Humphries now says are her photos, and he wrote that the researchers must be on to something because several researchers on multiple continents "converge on remarkably similar findings": https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/52/288.
In 2022 Sasha Latypova wrote an article about David Nixon's microchip images that was based on the paper by Hughes: https://sars2.net/pfizerstew.html#Latypova_and_Kingston_on_self_assembling_microchips_and_hydrogel. The pinned post in David Nixon's Substack promotes a book by David Hughes: https://davidnixon.substack.com/.
Catherine Austin Fitts has hosted two symposiums about the Omniwar concept coined by David Hughes. They featured presentations by David Hughes, Daniel Broudy, and Lissa Johnson. A thumbnail of the second symposium featured one of David Nixon's microchip images: https://sars2.net/pfizerstew.html#Connection_to_David_Hughes_Catherine_Austin_Fitts_and_David_Martin. In 2022 Hughes, Broudy, Kyrie, and Latypova were speakers at a symposium organized by D4CE together with CHD and Solari. Both Latypova and the nanobot crew wrote articles about their presentations that were published by Solari. In a recent interview with Solari, Suzanne Humphries said that Fitts gave her to impetus to reveal herself as the author of the microchip images from 2022: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Matt_Shelton.
This isn’t investigative logic. It’s pattern-seeking turned paranoid. If you want to make a serious point, bring primary evidence, verified identities, and a clear argument. Otherwise, this just looks like a web of speculation held together by rhetorical suggestion and pseudoscientific breadcrumbs.
"I assert this connects to this. I have no proof any of this is connected but for my writing them down in sequence in my blog that always tells me I'm right, even when scientists prove I'm not (see McKernan & McCairn's primary investigations into biophysical and genetic properties of "calamari clots - this will now trigger Henjin the sperg racist anti semite here to list lots of names of people talking about calamari clots, none of whom did any primary science with any samples, so are completely irrelevant to McKernan & McCairn).
This is pure conspiratorial innuendo masquerading as investigation. You’re drawing shaky connections between unrelated individuals based on pseudonym similarities (“Semmelweis”) and vague thematic overlaps like “psychological warfare.” That’s not evidence—it’s associative speculation.
"I create guilt by association where the associations don't even have to have any substance. This is called apophenia and I want people to believe it's credible. I have so little cognitive ability or self awareness that I don't even realise: I'm engaging in apophenia; have no evidentiary base or deductive method that supports the conclusions I draw and assert from apophenia; it's unconvincing to anyone with cognitive ability. All of this is why I have gotten no traction, attention or allegiance across the entire Covid spectrum."
Who is “Dr. Nate Semmelweis”? Are they a real person, let alone connected to anyone else you mention. Linking someone to alleged “nanobot ops” because they write about cognitive warfare is a rhetorical trick, not a factual argument. You’re also relying heavily on fringe sources like IJVTPR, which are well-known hubs of disinformation.
You constantly cite your own mentally disturbed, apophenic dirgefest website as if that's a conclusive primary evidence point rather than a collection of sequenced information that you assert is either directly linked or proves whatever you want it to prove. That's not a valid approach. "This is true because I wrote all of that down," isn't valid.
Throwing in names like David Hughes, Lissa Johnson, and Sasha Latypova doesn’t make your theory stronger—it just adds noise. None of them have demonstrated credible evidence of microchips or self-assembling nanotech in vaccines. Repeating unverified images and blogs across a small ecosystem of like-minded outlets is not convergence—it’s circular amplification.
You also have a transparently woeful method of asserting in the following manner:
-You are A.
-That's next to B in the alphabet.
-It also sounds like "J".
-B in the alphabet was the most common first letter of the names of people on my list of "People who did something I don't like."
-"J" is the shape of the hockey stick graph Al Gore claimed proved climate change.
-This is all in my website that only I ever put anything in, so that's all true.
-You must be helping all the Bs do the thing I don't like and you're pushing Al Gore's climate change (even though there is no evidence of either accusation).
I repetitively highlighted your mental illness, lack of cognitive ability and any factual or evidence based approach in McCairn's server, to the point where he agreed and kicked you out, even though it's practically impossible to get kicked out of there for being a fabulist or inept.
You continue to get no traction with your endless sperg stream that tries to push your agenda of "Covid was what the government said and all the shots work and are safe".
Thanks for coming here and exposing yourself though a zero-evidence list of fabulist hyper-associative assertions.
I don't think Nate Semmelweis is a real person, because there were only a few results when I googled for the name in double quotes, which were most about the post by masksaredangerous.com.
I think it's likely that you two are different people, but it's also plausible that you are the same person. Both of you even came up with an English nickname for the name Ignaz.
Another line of circumstantial evidence that connects you to nanobot ops is that you are connected to Kevin McCairn, who pushes the Stew op about calamari clots, which has a lot of overlap with graphene and nanobots. The journalist who broke the news about the calamari clots also brags that she broke the news about graphene oxide: https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1604355938881789952, https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1619624953036558338.
The microchip photos that Humphries now says are her photos were earlier presented by Matt Shelton in 2022. He told Maria Zeee that the photos showed nanobots and graphene oxide. McCairn was recently on Maria Zeee's show together with the star of a Stew Peters movie, where they discussed a phenomenon that was unknown until it was revealed to the world by Jane Ruby. The people who made the Stew Peters movie are now making a movie about nanobots called "DS2: Nano Sapiens".
Matt Shelton recently defended McCairn against criticism and asked someone to send their blood to McCairn: https://x.com/sussdoc/status/1903974688130564572. Shelton was credited in the Unholy Triad movies, which were directed by Wayne Crouch, who said that McCairn was connected to his group called Solution of Scientists: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Kevin_McCairns_connection_to_Solution_of_Scientists. The main theme of the videos were the mystery ORFs that were supposedly discovered by Greg Harrison, who was featured on McCairn's stream twice and who first connected McCairn to Hirschman. Tom Haviland wrote that Harrison was the "lead scientist" of a team that was analyzing the clots, and that Harrison asked Hirschman to send the clots to McCairn, and that Harrison asked McCairn to check the samples for the presence of prions.
Matt Shelton is also one of the handful of people who claims to have seen a calamari clot in the body of a living person. I believe the first two people were the anynomous ER doctor who was interviewed by Mike Adams on InfoWars through a voice changer, and Leunis van Rooyen who appeared on the Jane Ruby Show as a doctor who had removed a calamari clot from the leg of a living person (but who also talked to Ruby about graphene and snake venom). Later there also emerged Philip McMillan's cath lab whistleblower, Tom Haviland's cath lab whistleblower, McMillan's childhood friend Azzard Comrie, and Phillip Triantos who was on McCairn's stream.
In the same way that in 2022 new developments about the clots were reported by Jane Ruby and various whistleblowers are supposed to have contacted her concerning the clots, recently a similar role has been played by Philip McMillan. McMillan also pushed the disinformation story about how Greg Harrison had supposedly discovered new mystery ORFs in secret Chinese and Soviet military documents: https://sars2.net/clot.html#Philip_McMillan_and_mystery_ORFs. In one YouTube video McMillan first talked about how McCairn had found that the clots glowed in the dark, and then he did a presentation of one of Greg Harrison's AI-hallucinated documents about the ORFs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMFEGLWEXyU.
McMillan's sidekick Shankara Chetty claims that long COVID is caused by gut bacteria that were programmed to grow snake venom by SARS-CoV-2 through insertional mutagenesis (even though SARS-CoV-2 does not have reverse transcriptase which is needed for insertional mutagenesis). After Bryan Ardis and Stew Peters, Chetty was the person with the third most footage in the Watch the Water 2 film: https://sars2.net/clot2.html#Watch_the_Water_2_and_Shankara_Chetty_on_snake_venom. In the film Ardis said that he had been on Zoom calls with Chetty for three years now, and that Chetty was a "great, honest, ethical human being".
Chetty said that the counterterrorism expert Tau Braun was one of his guardian angels, and that Tau Braun told him to keep an eye on snake venom in 2021. Chetty said that he and Tau Braun were snake venom merchants. In 2022 Tau Braun told Jane Ruby that calamari clots consisted of tissue that had been programmed to grow snake venom gland by nanobots that used graphene oxide as a delivery mechanism.
When McCairn's sidekick Charles Rixey said that Chetty had been unfairly reported to his medical board, I told Rixey about how Chetty was pushing the story about snake venom, but he blocked me in response: https://x.com/henjin256/status/1936417518283006409. Two years ago, Chetty, Rixey, and McCairn were 3 of 5 speakers in an online conference hosted by McMillan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYCjFViwBWw.
Those repeatable forensic measurements made on those clots still grinding your gears, I see henjin.
The scientific measurements don't lie, but you most certainly do.
Well done, you’ve just won me a bet.
Once again you’ve served up a jumbled list and called it evidence. It’s not proof; it’s classic apophenia. You can’t tell coincidence from causation or background noise from a real signal.
You did exactly what I said you’d do. You threw out an irrelevant roll-call of names and claims that have nothing to do with me, linked only by your own spiral logic. In doing so you proved my prediction right, something no self-aware person would do in public.
Run your post through ChatGPT, a tool you already use, and it would flag your basic thinking faults:
- circular reasoning
- wild associative leaps
- grand wording standing in for evidence
That’s not an insult; it’s what the pattern-matcher spits out.
You never stop to check whether what you write hangs together. People have pointed this out on plenty of forums. Still you churn out the same tired script, as if repeating it will make it true. It won’t.
Even McCairn’s server, which puts up with almost anything, showed you the door. That wasn’t censorship; it was recognition.
Engaging with you is a time sink. I’d rather lug rocks uphill or stick my head in a bonfire. Both would be more productive than acting as your involuntary audience.
TTFN
Ah, there is several you. I can't really blame you, I guess. Please, don't insult anyone gratuitously on this current incarnation, if you want to keep flourishing in my comments.
The escort industry has sometimes nothing to do with "pimping" in the traditional sense of the term - they are often highly educated & pleasant individuals.
I don't care how Erin made it through life 20 years ago, or which plot she shared thinking it was valid in 2023. I don't care if people are misguided, I care if they are nefarious.
For example I know a Finnish dude who spends his days looking at demographic data yet thinks the jabs were a success - I won't be unpleasant to him just because he is obviously at best a bit retarded.
The problem with you spending your time going after good people or making comments which look out of Goebbels' textbook is that people then dismiss what you say without reviewing it.
Secondly, she was obviously trying to help & sharing something to the sagacity of the readers - on topic ; contrarily to half of your comments.
Making your insult gratuitous - as I stated.
Lastly, I understand your difficulties to interact with your fellow human beings, but it makes you come across as an utter and complete arsehole without serving your point.
So, given that you can't help yourself & double-down even if I ask kindly, see you on Henjin2048.
Dr Suzanne Humphries never spoke of nano bots or graphene. Matt Shelton visited Suzanne and persuaded her to hand over the files of her work under the guise of taking them to the police as evidence, only to go public and say anything he wanted to say. He will corroborate that he got the images from Dr Suzanne. Dr Suzanne wrote about Semmelweis in Dissolving Illusions and I happen to know that she used the name Nate Semmelwies early on (on masksaredangerous site which was created in a rush by an amateur friend of hers before covid vaccines were released when the mask issue was upsetting her) when she was anonymously talking about the images, only to later put them up on a site called lifeoftheblood, which she closed as she didn't want to keep paying for her server fees. She moved them to bitchute where they remain. Funny enough Jayne Ruby launched a surprise attack against Suzanne after the Joe Rogan podcast, where she accused Suzanne of 'coming out of nowhere'.
Look Mike , I have friends in the entertainment industry and medical folks, writers, basic human beings, who are very well known and who have anon accounts for a reason. They have family and bills to pay after they have been doxxed and fired from their jobs for many different reasons. The biggest doxxing frauds being the Bailey ,Stone crew against our control studies. So I don’t take kindly to this hubris.
You claim to be so darn independent but can’t see the forest for the dam trees.
I’m not familiar with the account you’re defensively offended by because “ they forgot your hit piece “.
Every time I see you post like this, you remind me of a 5 yr old child looking for attention. Grow up. Ruby’s a fraud, wtf are you so upset she’s being exposed for the pos she is ?
Facts are Facts. This has the sources noted. I don't care who wrote it. The evidence is proven correct.
Turtles All the Way Down - authors - anonymous
Nobody said that nanotechs researches weren't a thing, Angie, chill.
We said Sasha was pushing Nixon & Yanowitz's bullshits of it being in the jabs to poison the well & probably to damage the credibility of future concerns.
As soon as I found out Jane Ruby falsified data to push an opioid based product targeted for use in children, that was the end of her credibility. Now to read all of this, she's McFucked. A total fraud.
Thank you and great work.
What an amazing journey. I note that Jane, who now spends her time on twitter trying to harass and threaten people when she isn't pushing graphene garbage (and hatching eggs) in the vaccines, with the help of her friends Astrid Stuckelberger (of the WHO) and Sasha was still recently as 2022 declared to be working for Endo pharma.
https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2022/08000/real_world_medicare_healthcare_costs_of_patients.11.aspx
Her top co-author Vladimir Zah is a hoot. A ghost writer for pharma and a self declared expert in synthetic (i.e. fake) data
https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/euro2024/vlad-zah-present-3nov122024.pdf?sfvrsn=573f4b45_0
There is no data availability statement on the paper noted above, and is almost certainly unverifiable surgisphere-style "real world" data that may or may not be in the slightest bit real. However the conclusion of the study is that Xiaflex - made by the fraudulent Endo pharma (see https://young-lawgroup.com/news/endo-pharmaceuticals-opioid-475-million/ and others) - is as effective as surgical intervention. Well what a surprise.
So we have somebody convicted of fraud, working for a company convicted of fraud, publishing a paper written by a ghost writer, using unverifiable data that conveniently shows the drug made by the company they are working for is "effective".
What are the odds?
I’m feeling a little left out. Please write a smear piece on me, with loads of links, to make it look like you’ve done real research. I’d be particularly impressed if you can track down who’s paying me, because I’m not benefiting from any of it. A motive for what I’ve been doing for five plus years would be excellent. Because every time I look, it’s because we’re being lied to on every side and being injured by intentionally harmful injections of unregulated rubbish. Anyone not fighting this & warning others with all they have is of no interest to me.
I’m intervening because over five years, nothing Sasha Latypova has said, done or written, to my knowledge, has been other than totally aligned to my work and most importantly, an honest opinion about anything she’s yet tackled. It’s a dead giveaway when sly digs are used against a person but not a single, material demonstration of something they’ve done that benefits the powers running this worldwide deception. Name one or desist.
Beautiful act of solidarity, Mike. It's inspiring, to see all these ex-pharma who spent 4 years saying absolutely nothing of substance, but trying to defend Jane.
Are you sharing Sasha's analysis of Shimabukuro that a 82% miscarriage rate was observed on v-safe?
https://x.com/naomirwolf/status/1929607014583619955
But Yeadon has not defended Jane.
You are not making sense in your response.
It seems to me you are attacking low hanging fruit. If so, you are doing a disservice to your own credibility.
The Shimabukuro saga is very interesting. I like contrasting the methods of myth-making from Europeans vis-à-vis Asians. We can learn a lot more abouot sociology from studying the dark arts of marketing than by direct study of the "culture" which can be a very inaccessible concept.
But, again, even if the conclusion was wrong, it's difficult to leap from the error or lie of one person to conclude that another people (that you are obsessed with) are liars. That insinuation of a necessary and sufficient connection with no legs to stand on, means to me that you are not a good quality debater or a sincere researcher. In other words, you look like an activist to me. Possibly, a chaos agent. I may revise that provisional conclusion in the future, but so far, your rhetorical level is very lacking.
"with loads of links, to make it look like you’ve done real research"
Of course Mike is defending Jane, with his pathetic attempts to smear a very well documented work.
Wow! That was a fast way to accuse others of doing the same that you are doing.
Just remain calm, dude. If your post is any good the less reactive you are the best it would look. You just have to be zen about it and avoid personal attacks. Otherwise, you are undermining your own credibility, like I said.
Now I am inclined to think you are smearing Jane Ruby (whom I have never liked, btw) because of your emotional reaction.
That's how it works: if you let yourself be dragged to fallacies, no bystander will spend any minute looking into your real argument.
What do you want? Emphasize that. If you want readers to look, then do not abuse your readers with bullshit. Focus on your argument.
Good lord, what a sympathetic absolute waste of time you are.
Keep typing, pretend I'm interested.
What work Mike?
Can you give your best example please?
That's a no then
Mike,
This article IS NOT about Sasha, it's about Jane Ruby. Why have you never in these comments about the article said anything about Jane Ruby? Why have you only mentioned Sasha? And why is almost all of your message about you? You're not a subject of this article at all, so inserting yourself as a deflective, self-asserted moral reference point and epistemic referee appears **obtuse, irrelevant to the content of the article, and self-aggrandising.**
Given the article isn't about Sasha, why has she gone from initiating dismissal, smear and ad hominem around the article and its author, to then claiming it's about her?
This is completely false framing.
Where's Jane Ruby, the subject of the article?
Why have you deployed the following methodology:
1. Preemptive delegitimization of the article’s methodology as “smear.”
That's rhetorical inversion of victimhood--standard among actors seeking to frame criticism as persecution.
2. Claiming motiveless virtue:
*“I’m not benefiting from any of it… I’m not being paid.”*
This appeal to moral purity, used here to assert your own credibility to legitimize your comments and Sasha (and Jane) by association, add your overall defence of them.
3. Binary Moral Framing
*“Anyone not fighting this & warning others with all they have is of no interest to me.”*
This imposes an absolutist dichotomy: either you are fighting “the deception” (as defined by Mike’s framework), or you are morally irrelevant, which is an indirect total dismissal of anything Mike asserts doesn't fit his framework. However, this begs the question, why is Mike commenting here on this article that according to him “is of no interest to me”?
4. Vicarious validation of Latypova’s credibility
*“Over five years, nothing Sasha Latypova has said, done or written… has been other than totally aligned to my work… an honest opinion about anything she’s yet tackled.”*
Granting her vicarious legitimacy by leveraging your own perceived integrity within the Covid narrative: “I assert she's pristine because I said so and I hold myself in high regard.” This is argument from alignment, not evidence. “She agrees with me” is not a meaningful defence of credibility. Your claim of “honest opinion” is asserted, not demonstrated.
5. Poisoning the well
*“It’s a dead giveaway when sly digs are used … but not a single, material demonstration of something they’ve done that benefits the powers…”*
Classic poisoning the well: suggesting critique is invalid unless it proves a subject has actively “benefited the powers running this worldwide deception,” a threshold that is both nebulous and unfalsifiable. By this logic, anyone opposing Mike (or Sasha or Jane) must show explicit alignment or desist.
6. Challenge without engagement
*“Name one [thing she’s done to benefit the powers] or desist.”*
Attempts to reverse the burden of proof, demanding critics meet a bar of “material demonstration” while ignoring the documented evidence outlined in OpenVAET’s investigations e.g., publication authorship patterns, platform coordination, or obfuscation of professional history.
NOTE: This article is about Jane Ruby, so why the excessive and unrelated pre-emptive defence of Sasha Latypova, about whom the article says nothing of any evidenced substance other than referencing a supposed “trail of lies” while alluding to a detailed future article?
Your intervention looks to me like a narrative consolidation move, to pre-emptively delegitimise a potential future article on Latypova by:
- Mocking the investigative framework (“real research”);
- Reasserting shared ideology (“harmful injections”);
- Vouching for Latypova’s alignment and honesty;
- Reframing criticism as character defamation, not factual rebuttal.
**Why are you signalling, by unjustified and materially irrelevant self insertion, that:**
*any critique of one figure will be treated as an attack on all?*
**Yet the one thing you didn't do was defend the subject of the article - Jane Ruby - or deal with ANY of this article's substance?**
Mike "I’m intervening because over five years, nothing Sasha Latypova has said, done or written, to my knowledge, has been other than totally aligned to my work and most importantly, an honest opinion about anything she’s yet tackled. It’s a dead giveaway when sly digs are used against a person but not a single, material demonstration of something they’ve done that benefits the powers running this worldwide deception. Name one or desist. "
Since Sasha has blocked me since my initial interaction w Doc Malik's post interview w Mark Kulacz about opioid crisis, where ugly character assassination & pedophile accusations first caught my attention and reply, her remarks can only be seen when others post screenshots. Nothing says truthful like blocking critics with no social media footprint. Very little is as vile as calling someone a criminal abuser of children especially when the basis for that is Mark & Jay's criticism of Sasha's minor child videos featured on Alex Jones. Still stinks like week old fish w zero biology critiques & source you know.
Sasha " Thanks! my fan club is numerous and very diverse, spanning the rainbow of clowns from Robert Malone and MAHA apologists to mentally ill child predators JJ Couey/Housatonic duo to the PCR pushing fraudsters like Jikky/Arkmedic, and the Kevins, to nanotechnology nutjobs, to no-virus trolls,"
I will name one Mike. Right back when they first found GO in the shot, she ridiculed a researcher who did. And then when challenged by myself and AI, she used ad hominem as a rebut, and finally faded. Common Mike, tell me because Cole tested 100 vials out of 13 billion vials , and found no GO, there isn’t any in those 13 billion shots. ( that is the most ridiculous position taken by any person pretending to be intelligent) Forget the fact that different vials are filled with different components, forget the fact MANY researchers have found it. Forget the fact it serves a purpose with its self assembling nano structure and its potential use as RF transmitters. Forget the CEO of Nokia has already stated that “smart phones will be obsolete by 2030. The tech will be in our bodies”
If there is anything the globalists want more than injectable tracking, I don’t know what it is, because they have everything else as we speak ( pandemic treaties, CBDC, soft mindless compliant populations) .
Common now Mike, try to dismiss the GO as conspiracy theory. When it is already obviously a conspiracy fact. And when it is currently in use for drug delivery …
Oh, .... this is simply precious. I'd post this url in comments on Jane's Rumble posts, .... but I've been permanently banned from commenting there. Must have been something I said. lol
She did a show on the fiat situation and had a guest on to talk for an hour about GOLD. I posited that it seemed strange, this big push, for several years now, to get the general public to put all their beans into physical gold. What If?? What if TPTB are only interested in taking every last cent possible, and the government once again outlaws possessing gold just like they did in the 1930's ?? Of course, her guest for that hour long commercial, was also A SPONSOR of hers, a gold SELLER. Can't imagine why I got banned. Hahahahahah !!!!
I used to follow Ruby until I got a creepy feeling about her and her hatred of Dr. Malone.
You have not noticed that Dr. Malone is a double agent?
You haven't noticed this about Jane Ruby who is so embedded in every federal agency pay op she even got herself embroiled in the "proud boys" operation... But we have to listen to you and Sasha spout about Malone constantly.
Really?
https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/48149/1/the-real-people-behind-alt-right-extremism-online
It's a little particularity of this Substack, we like sources with assertions.
Could you link your (or the) analysis establishing that ?
The fact that Malone sued the Breggins for defamation hints in that direction. Another piece of evidence is that you support him.
I would like to see where & how I have supported Malone, with whom I have absolutely no relation, in my asking of a receipt.
The Breggins, Ruby & others like Screw Peters yes. I don't know how the Breggins were in that picture, but I would be very cautious of anyone associated with Screw Peters & Ruby. The trial wasn't serious and was dismissed by lack of proper jurisdiction anyway, it's not like Malone's lawyers tried very hard.
Do you have another pathetic insinuation or display of incompetence to make ?
Screw Peters…..😂
You cite Malone's writing. Who would trust a guy who claims to be an inventor of a vaccine and took that vaccine so he could travel? Didn't you notice that his wife, whom he calls Dr. Jill, got her Ph.D. from a diploma mill institution. Why would you call a human being "Screw"?
Screw Peters is a neo-nazi ex-rapper ex-bounty hunter whose last valuable thought was in his mother's belly. Everything about him is between pathetic & outrageous & his job is to shit in people's brain. So I'm calling him "Screw". If you're not happy with that I'm sure there are plenty of Substack you can comment on.
I quoted Malone's writing as being the one who broke the news of Ruby's involvement in the Indivior scandal. It has the merit of being true & accurate.
You seem deeply confused. Could you try to articulate an argument which doesn't consist in a vague smearing ? (Your next beyond useless comment will result in a month ban as I'm not sure to like you at all)
Wow! Alarming as hell but I can't wait to hear about Sasha? I thought she was one of our best!? Can you give me a hint?
Always go back to the fundamental principle "what have I learned thanks to ______?"
Then once you have realized you have learnt nothing valuable from someone in 3 years, start looking at what they push, and with who they interact (or who they avoid).
Sasha Latypova is a constant well poisoner who, when she isn't broadcasting crap like the 82% miscarriage rate designed to damage the credibility of the fertility concerns, is attacking genuine opponents to the propaganda. She talks about studies she hasn't even read properly like she had any expertise.
Confer here for the breakdown of "her work" on Shimabukuro :
https://www.arkmedic.info/p/the-miscarriages-are-real
There is much more, but we'll detail that later.
Thanks.
Yes. Borje Darpo. Co-author and Sasha's medical director. Karolinska institute, home of the mRNA vaccine pseudoscience. He runs QTc software and analyses for pharma companies to get their crap products through fast track pathways on behalf of Sasha's company. Additional ties to Boston Consulting Group, Boston Analysis group, NDA with Pfizer etc etc. Full time job is doing interviews with crackpots to undermine legal cases that she then injects herself into presumably to crash them. Like Brook Jackson's case.
Thank you. Jane, not a doctor, has come after so many of my colleagues and me, including members of the so-called disinformation dozen that I’m in w Robert F Kennedy, who she attacks, Dr. mercola, who she attacks, sayer ji, who just shared this who she attacks and did you see the article that was just posted by a well-known MDPHD yesterday to their audience? It was about a woman who worked with Epstein and they called her “Samantha”. But the daily mail accidentally called her Jane one time in the article and she was a dead ringer for Jane not a doctor that you’re right about. I don’t know if I can post links here, but I’ve posted it on my x page.
My bad, as I stated I'm uncomfortable with permanent bans, but you're congenitally unable to behave, between your hatred of women & Jews. Being on the spectrum isn't a blank check to be a perpetual moron, you know.
Jane has been associated with Mike Adams and Alex Jones. She's into chemtrails as well as various other issues designed to convince us that "they are trying to poison you." While this may be true, I found her style to be a bit abrasive and careless, so did not enjoy her interviews.
I see her as a kind of "loose cannon," kind of like Laura Loomer. They are trying to make their way through a world they really don't understand that well with skills that may in some ways be sub-par. But this is true for so many of us.
Their willingness to attack others active in "the movement," though, is alarming. On the one hand it makes them look like fanatics. And on the other hand, it suggests the possibility of outside influence working through them to create discord and some degree of chaos. We can only expect these attempts to increase. Those who have been involved with these subjects for many years have seen this pattern play out many times. It is part of the risk you take, one could say, for pursuing the truth.
Yes. I do agree with Sasha L. that voting to push RSV shots was the wrong move for all kids going forward, that is huge. I also believe Dr. Malone had no nefarious intent in voting yah, he based his decision on the presentations provided, which were incomplete. The mistake was in voting at all. The ACIP should not be voting based on biased information presented by the CDC or whoever. There should be a time lag of a few days, where the information is sent to the members, so they can review and discover biases and gaps, and then come to the meeting well-armed to participate in informed voting. Retsef from MIT erred on the side of caution which is always the ethical thing to do when unsure about a product that is being recommended for children.
I am not too fast to judge any of these people. They have invaded the - what? - hornet's nest - and have the touchy task of getting rid of the hornets without being too badly stung. We are not clear yet on how deep (or far up) the evil, deceit and treachery reaches. They could be attempting what is factually a very dangerous job.
I am not judging Dr. Malone negatively as a person, I still think he made the wrong decision he could have voted the same as Retsef.
Jane Ruby also put her Diploma mill degree from Kennedy Western University on her affidavit used in a court case . It's on the first page that is the image she used on her website. When you download her affidavit the first page is omitted. She's sneaky. Jane Ruby also was accused on X of being a con when her and Laura Loomer ran the Stewart for Congress campaign. Ruby furniture went bankrupt about a year ago or so. Reading the comments, many people claim to have lost their money and never received their furniture.
My bad, you're indeed severely impaired in terms of cognitive functions. Come back in a month.
Another odd thing is that Ruby did not list her doctorate degrees in he bio attached to a pleading she submitted in a C19 case. She listed two masters degrees but no doctorates.
PS - I had downloaded it originally in October 2021 and just now looked it up again. The Affidavit version on her website now includes "two earned doctoral degrees" whereas the copy I downloaded before did not. It would be worth finding the docketed court filing and seeing it. Of note, I could not find the referenced CV online. The version I had downloaded in October 2021 is still online and can be found at this link.
https://drelef.org/zelenko/white-papers/Ruby%20Affidavit_DTR_20210927_Exhibits_FINAL.pdf
Look at the IMAGE of the affidavit on her website. The first page in the affidavit is NOT in the download. The first page is the IMAGE (photo). This was done for a reason, to hide the first page of the affidavit.
https://drjaneruby.com/dr-jane-ruby-affidavit/
Interesting point. It's there now, but the language in the image and the current download on her website differ regarding her alleged doctorate degrees. The pagination on the two versions on her website also differs as a result of these differences. The font spacing changes from the foregoing text in all 3 versions beginning at paragraph 5. The image contains cursory doctorate assertions in paragraph 5 but the current version on her website lists them in greater detail in paragraph 6. The original version online did not claim any doctorates at all. It looks like she filed her alleged Affidavit in "Comirnaty" litigation which could be tracked down. It would be interesting to see her docketed filing, the CV she attached to it, and if the documents were ever amended. Curious.
Something is fishy about that affidavit. I think someone needs to get an original copy from the court.
I found Ruby's Affidavit. It was attached as Exh 17 to the Complaint in Coker v Austin, 3:21-01211, ND FL filed October 2021. It mirrors the original version online which does not list doctorate degrees in the narrative section, likely because they are not medical doctorates. Her CV states she got a BS in Nursing from Alfred U in 1988, an MS in Nursing from U of Rochester in 1992, an EdD from U of Rochester in 2000, a PhD in Psychology from Kennedy Western U in 2004, and an MS in Health Economics in 2014 from the Barcelona School of Management. Her CV states she is licensed as a Nurse Practitioner and an RN in NY and an RN in OH.
Dr Malone, great and informative article. Just be careful as that Laure Loomer is a real, as the kids use to say, wack job. I do not understand why she has the ear of our President but as her previous actions have shown she is a real vindictive person and most likely would turn on someone on a dime if she thought it would in some way benefit herself. Also the subject of your article, how do these people get serious jobs with the pharmaceutical industry with degrees from on-line universities? Pharma pays really well and you would think they would only want the best from the best schools. Anyway always enjoy your work and I hope the heat wave blanketing Virginia horse county has not left your mounts breathless in the shade.
They don't get real jobs. On her research profile Ruby is affiliated with Reckitt as "medical affairs". This is a PR job, used to indoctrinate doctors into prescribing their drugs and heading off adverse reports from doctors and scientists.
Interesting threads. I followed the links appended to your report, and found among them archived posts of Mrs. Ruby sock-puppeting DrJaneRuby to Mike Cernovich.
There's no way that's not suss.
So, until I have some good reason to investigate all the personalities involved, I'll check out any data you share with Dr. Malone and ignore Mrs. Latypova.
God bless.
Anyone connected with Stew "snake-venom-in-the-water-Peters is best avoided. I remember reading Dr Malone's article which confirmed my suspicions. What really irks me is that MAGA is losing good-hearted people to these charlatans and may never return to the fight due to let-downs, disappointments and lies.
"...that case was dismissed based on venue by an elderly VA judge who decided that I needed to sue Ruby in her state of residence, not in VA Federal court."
Smells like a diversity of citizenship ruling - Article III. I would like to see this "judge" oath of office.
I bet he is from a different state altogether and/or he is Retired, not a Senior Judge. Thus unaccountable for exceeding his paygrade. If you are curious, request his (or her) oath from the DoJ: https://www.foia.gov/agency-search.html?id=0f2d33d4-234a-45a1-9655-8f482af498d8&type=agency
If it is a valid oath "So help me God." not "SO HELP ME GOD." I would really like to get that on file. What year? I want to isolate when Article III was abandoned for administrative arbitration disguised as Judicial Branch.
P.S. No PACER hits for any state - "robert malone v. jane ruby". Scrubbed clean? That is a federal felony too. One lie after another...
It appears to be part of Malone v Breggin et al
3:22-cv-00063-NKM Malone v. Breggin et al
Thank you. Anybody interested in seeing his oath can request it FOIAOnline from the Department of Justice. He is a CLINTON nominee so I already know it is a deviant oath. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/moon-norman-k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_K._Moon
Not to build any false hope but TRUMP has nominated several Florida "judges" for various Right-leaning postures during extensive lawfare there. The odds of finding an award might be looking into academically. Without judicial officers though, and walking into a den of criminal impersonation, I cannot offer any hope.
Like I said, I am working on it. Rectification of Judiciary and retooling global central banking. The Fed pretending to lose money allegedly owed to the US Treasury is accelerating things quite a bit. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImX1BSMHdYb3NwcTA
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yk-3x1BK7hPdNYEblT_kRSKywSIayT5e
Looking closer, MOON avoided Article III - Original Jurisdiction by ruling that RUBY was beyond jurisdiction her being in Florida and MALONE in Virginia. Had MOON been capable of ruling so, he would have simply decided if Virginia law applied, or Florida law. If Florida then the case would be remanded to Florida.
I cut my teeth about Redemption on this Libel in Review process: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImN2EyZTM2MmMtMDBjOC00ZTRiLWI4NDEtODU3MGE3MjUyYjNm My friend, more an uninvited mentor (32nd Degree Mason) was dismayed when "Judge" Wiley Young DANIEL (Denver) would not dawn his Article III cap and rule if the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was Colorado or Federal jurisdiction. The NOFTL however was removed from the county clerk and recorder's index. That is just wrong. Released? Maybe but Dissappeared? There is no process to unfile things like that. Corrupt.
And contrary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rc0sp7vQ9BxGQTJ5jH1kVKf2KfB_yFJi