1. Monkeypox first appeared outside a lab, in the Congo, during a period of "intensified effort to eliminate smallpox."
I.e. monkeypox first appeared outside a lab only after the initiation of a smallpox vaccination campaign.
2. Clinical distinction between smallpox and monkeypox, both in monkeys and in humans, is not possible.
Preben Christian Alexander von Magnus, a Danish virologist who was known for his research on influenza and polio vaccinations, is credited with confirming the existence of the monkeypox virus.
In a 1959 paper, which first described the virus, von Magnus et al. noted that "Clinical distinction between smallpox and monkeypox, both in monkeys and in man, is not possible."
3. A "VIRUS SIMILAR TO, if not identical with, monkeypox virus was isolated" in the supposed first human case of the disease.
The first human case, a 9-month-old child, was first suspected of having smallpox. When researchers went to isolate the virus, they said it was "similar to, if not identical with" the monkeypox virus.
4. The "vaccine" for monkeypox is just a rebranded version of the "vaccine'" for smallpox.
Furthering the parallels between monkeypox and smallpox is the fact that authorities—including the WHO, the CDC, the FDA, et al.—believe the “vaccine” for the latter disease can be deployed to protect against the former one.
In fact, Paul Chaplin, president and CEO of vaccine producer Bavarian Nordic, announced in a May 18, 2022 press release that “the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has exercised the first options under the contract to supply a freeze-dried version of JYNNEOS® smallpox vaccine, thus allowing for the first doses of this version to be manufactured and invoiced in 2023 and 2024.” Jynneos, according to the FDA, can also be used as a vaccine for monkeypox.
5. The monkeypox "vaccine" itself can cause monkeypox
A 1973 study published in Bacteriology Reviews found that the monkeypox "vaccine" itself can cause monkeypox.
6. A WHO bulletin from 1968—prior to the supposed first case of monkeypox discovered in humans—described humans as "comparatively insusceptible to this virus."
The same bulletin added that since "no outbreaks of pox disease in monkeys in nature have been reported since 1936 suggests that this phenomenon must be rare indeed."
7. In summary: Monkeypox appears to be an artifact of smallpox "vaccination" campaigns. That is, health authorities administer smallpox "vaccines"—which cause smallpox outbreaks—and then they refer to these outbreaks as monkeypox outbreaks.
Monkeypox is a FAKE. It is not distinguishable from smallpox clinically nor serologically. Only a virus SIMILAR TO monkeypox virus was ever isolated.
This is likely why monkeypox tends to break out in children: they have been freshly "vaccinated" with the smallpox "vaccine."
All source links, as well as further research, can be found here:
WOW! The legendary Rosa Koire, author of Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, said that the U.S. and China were working in conjunction on a "sterilization vaccine" in 2012(!!!).
She knew they were going to launch a depopulation "vaccine" 8 years before Covid kicked off!
For reference, the evidence proving the Covid injections are depopulation jabs is overwhelming. See thread:
The biggest story in history is unfolding right now, but few know about it: Dr. Francis Boyle died mysteriously right before he was set to testify against Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, et al saying the Covid jabs are bioweapons
This case is about the extermination of our species!
Boyle—the eminent lawyer who drafted the legislation for the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989—was set to testify in a lawsuit Dutch attorney Peter Stassen has brought against "the architects of The Great Reset."
Dr. Francis Boyle—the eminent lawyer who drafted the legislation for the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989—calls out Bill Gates as a eugenicist and says the Covid jabs are "franken-shots" that have killed millions of people:
Few know how incredible @PhdSansone is. He's the one who got Dr. Francis Boyle—the eminent lawyer who drafted the legislation for the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989—to submit a signed affidavit claiming that the Covid jabs are literal bioweapons (See tweets 2/3/4)
@PhdSansone Francis Boyle's signed affidavit claiming that, in his expert opinion, the Covid jabs "meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction...."
@PhdSansone Francis Boyle, referencing Sansone's case in Florida (for which he submitted the above signed affidavit), refers to the Covid injections as "Nazi Covid Franken-shots":
Former medical coder and whistleblower Zowe Smith:
"A program called Tiberius... was provided by Palantir... the same Tiberius program that we believe is used in Gaza to identify targets... for... Operation Warp Speed, to assign people behavior scores... So did you go and get your vaccines? Did you volunteer? Did you put on your mask? Did you do distancing? They [could] tell all of that. They could tell location data, they could tell ethnicity, they could tell what's your [financial situation], they could tell who you've been around. And the Tiberius program would use that to assign you a behavior score.
"They [used] that to target their countermeasure strikes. So where [they sent] their ventilators, where [they sent] the remdesivir, and where [they sent] the vaccines that people [weren't] taking. That was the program that informed those decisions... [the] Palantir Tiberius program."
This clip of Smith (@Zowe_TKMC), who is also the author of The Covid Code: My Life in the Thrill Kill Medical Cult, is taken from a conversation with The Real Natureboy (@NBNNatureboy) posted to Rumble on December 5, 2025.
----------------Partial transcription of clip---------------
"Then I found Whitney Webb's article talking about HHS Protect and how that was a pro—There was a program called Tiberius built into that that was provided by Palantir. This is the same Tiberius program that we believe is used in Gaza to identify the targets, the Hamas targets for drone strikes. Same program, but it was used for a military operation, Operation Warp Speed, to assign people behavior scores.
"So did you go and get your vaccines? Did you volunteer? Did you, put on your mask? Did you do distancing? They can tell all of that. They could tell location data, they could tell ethnicity, they could tell what's your finance, they could tell who you've been around. And the Tiberius program would use that to assign you a behavior score.
"They also use that information since hospitals had to send, things like their, their case mix index, how many patients were there, how many ventilators. They use that to target their countermeasure strikes. So where do they send their ventilators, where do they send the remdesivir, and where do they send the vaccines that people aren't taking? That was the program that informed those decisions, was this Palantir Tiberius program. And the reason it's so nefarious is as you mentioned earlier, they have drones here in America. Our police are already using them. I checked in my state, in my county, they've had contracts since 2011 to get drones here, and they're already using them. They're saying that they're using them for, people that have firearms.
"So it's like a firearms response team, I think it's called. F.I.T. is their acronym. And so it's any person who's suspected of having a firearm, they'll send a drone out instead of a police officer because it would be dangerous for a police officer to go and get shot, but not as bad for a drone to go and get shot.
"So that's how they're framing it. Are these armed drones or are these just observational drones? I think they're just observational at this moment in time. But there is an article, peer-reviewed article actually, talking about how to deploy different Covid measures, countermeasures, and having drones deliver packages, like having drones deliver vaccines.
"It's not going to be that hard. I mean, our military already has what's called LMAMs, which are, that's their acronym for like a individually autonomous flying drone, like a swarm of them. And those are the ones that could have, I forget what their military term is. But it could be a weapon or it could be a drug."
Straight from the Palantir website:
"Palantir was commissioned in mid-2020 by [HHS] to build Tiberius, a software platform it uses to track vaccine production, distribution, and administration across the United States." palantir.com/newsroom/press…
Recall that we now know the Covid injections are actually bioweapons.
Palantir wasn't tracking the distribution of "vaccines," it was tracking the distribution of bioweapons, which were maiming, slaughtering, and sterilizing Americans.
This is the real reason America is headed toward civil war, and almost nobody understands what's happening (1/3):
"We're headed toward civil war, and this is what caused it: We can't get resolution in the courts. There's nowhere else to go. The courts refuse to do their jobs."
Electrical engineer and independent investigator John Beaudoin, Sr. (@JohnBeaudoinSr) describes for Cornelia Rose (@FlashlightsPod) how two rulings from 2007 and 2009—Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly and Ashcroft v Iqbal—have severely hamstrung plaintiffs' ability to argue their cases in U.S. courts—particularly in regard to civil rights and discrimination lawsuits.
Now, because people with legitimate grievances can't get their proverbial day in court, justice is seeping out onto the streets. Ultimately, Beaudoin says, this will lead to civil war for America.
For reference, per Grok (asked to provide an overview of Ashcroft v Iqbal in simple language aimed at a lay population):
"In 2009, the Supreme Court decided a big case called Ashcroft v. Iqbal. A man named Javaid Iqbal sued top government officials, saying they put him in harsh detention after 9/11 because of his religion and race. The Court (in a close 5–4 vote) said that to keep a lawsuit alive, you can’t just make vague accusations or repeat legal buzzwords. You need clear, specific facts that make the claim seem realistic—not just possible, but plausible. If the complaint looks mostly like conclusions without solid facts to back them up, the judge can throw the case out early, before any evidence is gathered."
"This ruling (together with a similar 2007 case called Twombly) gave judges much more power to dismiss cases right at the start. Before, many lawsuits could move forward to the evidence stage; after Iqbal, dismissal rates jumped from around half to two-thirds or more, especially in civil-rights and discrimination cases. Courts also started using the same tough 'plausibility' test when checking if a plaintiff was actually harmed and can trace that harm to the defendant (this is called 'standing'). As a result, thousands of cases now get thrown out early for sounding too weak or speculative, making it much harder for regular people to sue the government or big companies."
---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------
"You've got a lot of things happening in the United States and around the world. One is climate change. You bring a case. Climate change dismissed. Elections in 2020. Sixty cases were brought on behalf of the Trump campaign. Sixty. All 60 were dismissed without a substantive hearing. They didn't get to discovery. They were dismissed on the procedural stage."
"And for an example, not only my three cases, they used Ashcroft versus Iqbal, right? They used these cases against me, in all three of the cases I brought. But also from me, little old me, pro se litigant, not a lawyer, representing myself, all the way up to the— the, the states, Texas and Missouri, brought a case against Pennsylvania for the elections, saying that Pennsylvania broke its own laws. It automatically goes to the Supreme Court because it's two states against another state.
"They call it original jurisdiction. So it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, dismissed, you don't have standing. And they cited Ashcroft versus Iqbal. So not only was it my cases, but all the way up to The President, and 60 cases, all dismissed. They all say you don't have standing.
"So it's elections, it's climate, it's trans in kids, it's Covid. Covid vaccines. Whatever social issue it is, you don't get any resolution in the courts. The courts are not doing their job of dispute resolution.
"So what happens, Cornelia, is civil society breaks down. You have people dividing into camps because the issues are not being settled or adjudicated. And so you leave it to society to fight amongst each other, fight on social media, fight in the streets. So we're devolving as a civil society based on what's happened with, with these two cases and the way the courts are operating extremely inefficiently, dismissing righteous cases that should be heard.
"So, anyway, the summation is— This graph is the problem with the United States. And everybody's looking at the executive and legislative branches trying to solve it. That's not where the problem is. You can fix those two branches if the courts will actually hear the cases. They're not hearing them."
(2/3) "We're headed toward civil war, and this is what caused it. We can't get resolution in the courts. There's nowhere else to go. The courts refuse to do their jobs... The most foundational right you have is being abridged by this idea of standing doctrine...."
----------------Partial transcription of clip---------------
We're headed towards civil war, and this is what caused it. We can't get resolution in the courts. There's nowhere else to go. The courts refuse to do their jobs. And what I didn't mention here, I could go through the whole history of it back to the Magna Carta, but the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the last line is you have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That is the most foundational right.
If you want to uphold your right to freedom to exercise your religion, if you want to uphold your right of freedom of speech, what are you going to do about it? You're going to go to court and sue somebody, and then the court says, nope, you don't have standing. So your foundational right, that upholds all others other than the Second Amendment that we don't want to get to. Right? We don't want to talk about violent, you know, using guns to support your right to freedom.
But if we set that aside, then the most foundational right before that is the right to petition for redress of grievances and your right to due process of law in the 14th Amendment, equal protections under the 14th Amendment, and your right to dispute resolution in the courts in Article 3, Section 2. The most foundational right you have is being abridged by this idea of standing doctrine that derives authority from this very attenuated path of authority that says Article 3, Section 2 says you have a right to go to court if you have a valid complaint against somebody in another state or if it has to do with a federal law.
(3/3) "Covid comes in in 2020, [and there are] 180,000 more cases than normal—180,000. How does the court system handle that? ... There's only one way to do this: You have to start dismissing cases and not hearing them. It's the only way to manage this."
In this last clip, Beaudoin describes how courts used Ashcroft v Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly to dismiss legitimate cases concerning U.S. citizens who were having their constitutional rights trampled thanks to the (so-called) Covid public health policy measures.
----------------Partial transcription of clip---------------
"This is the— This is the US District courts. And so you have the graph going from 1995 to 2024. It's every other year. So the blank on the far right side is 2024. So that's 30 years. You have 30 years, and you're going along 1995, '6, '7. You see, these are all the differences each year. This is difference from, say, average. It's really linear least squares approximation trend line. I don't want to explain that. Let's just say this is the excess cases.
"In 1995, you know, it's like minus 6,000. Actually easier for me to read mine. And then 1996 was 13,000. 14. Minus 2,000. Near zero at 16 cases. It goes along. So you've got a range from 14,000 at the highest to minus 18,000 at the lowest. And then even in 20— What was that? 2019, 10,000.
"But then in 2020, so Covid hits, right? Covid comes in in 2020, 180,000 more cases than normal. 180,000. How does the court system handle that? If you look at the graph in the below, I just used a percentage. Okay? Percentage more than expected. And, you know, you've got the. The most is 5.7%, and the least is minus 6.3%. So your range for 25 years, your range is 5.7% max and minus 6.3% deficit. And then all of a sudden, you have a 62% increase. That's that, 180,000 extra cases.
"Did you hire 62% more people to handle those cases? No. Did everybody in the court system, all the judges and all the clerks, did they work 62% more hours? Like 14 hours a day, every day for a year? No. There's only one way to do this. You have to start dismissing cases and not hearing them. It's the only way to manage this."
The most important point re: Covid and the real reason MAHA is just a psyop–failure:
"Over 90% of [the health freedom movement] is...talk about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines...[but that's] a dead end...[because the Covid jabs] are weapons."
See 🧵 for evidence
This clip is of retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (@sasha_latypova) taken from a conversation with Debbie Lerman and Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) CEO Mary Holland (@maryhollandnyc) posted to Rumble on November 11, 2025.
----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------
"One of my large points of frustration is the whole health freedom movement. 90% of it, over 90% of it, is people just talk about safety and efficacy of these vaccines. In my opinion, it's a dead end. And it was set up as a dead end for everyone to walk in and march in place. Until they continued the constructed digital cage and everything else that Debbie was talking about.
"The safety and efficacy discussion, as I said, is inapplicable to EUA countermeasures. It is not possible to even conduct clinical trials for EUA countermeasures because according to the law, these products are non-investigational. This is a very, very important categorization of substance of these products. If it's non-investigational, it's not possible to clinical trial it. Because clinical trial in humans is an investigation. That's how the law treats it.
"Since it's non-investigational. And in addition to being non- investigational chemical substance, the chemical substance can be freely adulterated with any poison. It is also okay to lie about it. If you are covered person using it as a covered countermeasure, meaning you following HHS and DOD orders when using it, then, as Debbie said, it's a license to kill. You can kill as many people as you want or don't want, as many as they tell you, and be fully absolved from liability. And the whole sovereign immunity of the state will be applied to absolve you from liability.
"So I just explained to you that these products are weapons. There is only one conclusion that arise from it. If it's a non-investigational can be adulterated as poison. Anybody who is injuring or killing people with them absolved from liability, they are weapons. There's no other space into which all of this falls other than it's a weapon and it's used as a weapon and the people who are using it as a weapon, are absolved from liability. Just like the soldiers in the combat field. If they kill or injure anyone."
(2/8) This video essay outlines the overwhelming evidence that shows the Covid jabs are bioweapons.
They make you more likely to get Covid and can otherwise only maim, injure, or kill.