Nobel Prize Winning Virologist Professor Luc A. Montagnier Submits Sworn Affidavit To International Criminal Court Alleging World Governments Are “Complicit In Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity”
  • Yes, surreal as it seems, it has come to this.

    From The Daily Expose:

    New evidence, including sworn affidavits from leading experts such as Professor Luc A. Montagnier, has been submitted to the International Criminal Court by lawyers in several countries alleging Government’s across the world and their advisors are complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the Nuremberg Code.

    Attorney Melinda C. Mayne, and Kaira S. McCallum submitted a 27-page ‘Request for Investigation’ to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague back in April 2021 alleging the UK Government and its advisors were complicit in crimes against humanity in the name of Covid-19.

    A new press release released on the 17th August, which can be viewed here, confirms that the pair have received sworn affidavits from leading experts including research scientist and nuclear cardiologist Dr Richard M. Fleming, the Nobel Laureate virologist Professor Luc A. Montagnier, and Dr Kevin W. McCairn, a neuroscientist and expert on neurological disease.

    Professor Luc A. Montagnier, who won a Nobel prize for his work on the HIV virus, claimed in April 2020 that he believed the novel coronavirus was created in a laboratory. Then in May 2021 the expert virologist stated that “Mass vaccinations are a scientific error as well as a medical error. It is an unacceptable mistake. The history books will show that, because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”


    Professor Luc A. Montagnier is not, to my knowledge, a “right-winger.”

    Neither is he, to my knowledge, an “anti-vaxxer” nor a conspiracy theorist. In reading rather extensively about him these past few weeks, I determine him to be an exceptionally — exceptionally, I repeat for emphasis — intelligent, independent-thinking human being with a staggering amount of biochemical knowledge, who is appalled at the atrocity playing out in real time before our very eyes.

    Professor Luc A. Montagnier, whom I quoted not long ago, has also said, in the context of Gene Transfer Therapy vaccines:

    “This vaccine is the biggest risk to the genocide of humanity in all human history.”

    I ask you to think long and deeply about a Nobel Prize winning virologist saying that — and saying it, moreover, several months ago.

    This is not, mind you, somebody anti-science who disapproves of new medical technologies or scientific advancements.

    Quoting Professor Montagnier again:

    “It is the antibodies produced by the virus that enable the infection to become stronger. It is what we call antibody-dependent enhancement, which means antibodies favour a certain infection. It is clear that the new variants are created by antibody-mediated selection due to the vaccination.”

    The partisan political infighting must stop — for this issue, at the very least.

    I assure you that partisan politics and Donald Trump are totally irrelevant to what we have immediately before us — and, for the record, Donald Trump, like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, George Bush Jr., George W. Bush Sr., Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, George Soros, Bill Gates, Kevin Trudeau, Klaus Schwab, Jen Psaki, and virtually everyone else on the left, is unequivocally pro-vaccine and here in his own words is the proof. On the issue of experimental genetic injections, every leftist I know, without a single exception, side with Donald Trump. I ask you to mark this — strike that: I demand it.

    Donald Trump is as responsible for the vaccines as anyone on the left.

    I ask also that if you only do one thing let it be this:

    Inform others to the best of your ability that this vaccine is not the typical kind of vaccine which we’ve all had and to which we’ve all grown accustomed.

    This is something completely new and never used as a vaccine before — never properly vetted or tested for longterm safety issues. Inform people that the genetic material in these Gene Transfer platforms are driving variants by selecting for them — much in the same way that antibiotics create antibiotic resistance — and inform people also that pregnant woman, children, and Covid-recovered people should definitely not take these. There’s not been nearly enough time to determine precisely what thrombotic and autoimmune chain-reactions they may set off within the human body. I know that it’s not always easy to discuss this topic. One only need be informative. People have got to know what these vaccines are. Because almost nobody does know. The people pushing the hardest for them — and growing increasingly hostile and even violent in doing so — none of them whom I’ve met or read have any idea that this is a genetic injection, and that it’s had the deadliest vaccine rollout of all time. None of them.

    As one doctor I read recently put it:

    “Natural immunity is light years more effective than Gene Transfer immunity, which is iffy at best. But, if you think about it, natural immunity puts a dagger in vaccine mandates, right? Why make someone who already has immunity get a vaccine?”

    Why, indeed?

    Perhaps Gene Transfer Therapy will all work out just fine — and I hope to hell that that’s the case. But the rollout of it, without any oversight or press briefings or full safety protocols, has been, according to the CDC’s data and the WHO’s data, the most lethal and dangerous rollout of any vaccine in world history.


    Human knowledge begins with observation.

    Gaining knowledge requires an act of mental integration — the integration of observed reality — and this act, please note, is not automatic but requires effort.

    Understanding — and I mean “understanding” here in the sense of comprehending — is the act of grasping or of apprehending some fact or facts of reality.

    The act of grasping is an act of apprehension, which is an act of comprehension, which is an act of understanding. These words in this context are all synonymous: apprehension, comprehension, understanding.

    The act of apprehension is the act of integrating — specifically, of integrating newly discovered information or data into what is already known. It is a process of context expansion.

    Learning is largely a process of context expansion.

    Integrating is synthesizing.

    Synthesizing is blending.

    Learning is a process of blending in new data with data already there — data already retained: data that’s known and grasped, data held and stored inside one’s mind.

    When in this fashion new data is blended with data that’s already stored, an act of learning has taken place.

    When, for instance, a child perceives that pushing a red wagon results in that red wagon rolling across the floor, this same child in retaining that observation (which is information, which is data) will then know that she can push that wagon again to watch it roll across the floor. But imagine that the next time she tries, the child’s father has removed one of the wagon wheels to repair it, so that this time when the child pushes the wagon, she observes it does not roll across the floor, as it had the previous time. Perhaps she investigates this herself and, depending upon her age and her context of knowledge, she figures out why. Or perhaps her father is observing her, and he then shows this little one why it didn’t roll this time around. Perhaps he even fixes the wagon wheel right then and there, so that he can have her push it again now that it’s fixed, and he watches her observe and then integrate and grasp what has just transpired. All of this is an act of observation and mental synthesis on the child’s part. It is the act of mentally processing observed data.

    All of which is by way of illustrating, in compendiated and abbreviated form, how humans obtain actual knowledge. My example was an illustration of the perceptual, but the same principle applies to the conceptual as well:

    Imagine the same child, at age two, learning what the word “crayon” means and then learning to distinguish a crayon from, for example, a stick of sidewalk chalk. The specific word or words may initially, in any given language, be arbitrary — “crayon” and “chalk” — but this does not ultimately matter: the referent in reality — the thing known as a “crayon” and the thing known as “chalk” — are real entities. This is why we’re able to learn new languages: the specific words are different, but the referent is the same.

    The actual referents in my example — the crayon and chalk — possess numerous similarities and differences, and observing and learning these similarities and differences, which is context expansion, is also what it means to understand, comprehend, apprehend.

    These similarities and differences are also why the old Greek system of classification, which is still in use today and which is a type of lexicography (i.e. definitions) specifies “genus” (similarity) and “differentia” (differences).

    All of this belongs to the science of epistemology — from the Ancient Greek word episteme, which means “knowledge.”

    Humans do not obtain knowledge by authoritarian decree — not true knowledge. Humans may accept and believe things based upon decree, but these things do not and cannot qualify as actual knowledge. They are beliefs. They are unexamined, unquestioned beliefs. They are in this sense a dogma.

    To a species that lives and flourishes by means of reason and thought, dogma is life-threateningly dangerous. Dogma is unthinking mindlessness. It is pure conformity.

    True knowledge requires an act of independently processing, which is to say grasping, which is to say this: true knowledge requires an act of individualized integration.

    The act of mentally grasping — of integrating — is by definition an individualized process.

    No one can perform it for another.

    It is something each person must do for her or himself. It is the very locus of individuality and free will. The father can show the little one how he repairs the wagon-wheel and that it thereafter rolls, but to truly understand and to know, the little one must independently perform the act of observation and integration required. She must pay attention — or, more precisely, she must exert the effort of attention.

    To expect people to subvert this process — to expect it for any reason — or to for any reason ask people to subvert this process is to violate the nature of conceptualization and the faculty of human reason.

    When people demand that you accept as fact what they tell you or what they declare, whether you’ve independently sifted through the relevant material yourself or not, they are demanding that you violate the epistemological nature of the human mind.

    To ignore reality and to ignore observed facts is to similarly violate the epistemological nature of thought.

    The opposite of what I’ve described — with the child and red wagon-wheel — is to accept a given thing upon faith. The thing or person or people in whom one puts one’s faith is ultimately irrelevant to the context here. It could be the followers of Jim Jones or the Pope of Rome, or it could be the followers of Barack Obama or Joe Biden, or it could be the followers of Donald Trump or Vladimir Lenin or the United Nation or the World Health Organization or the CCP or anyone or anything else. The principle is what’s at issue, and that principle is this:

    Does one know something because one has sifted through the relevant data and learned the information? Or, rather, does one merely believe it to be true based upon faith? Is one bullied into believing, whether by consensus or no, or is one encouraged to go through the material and process it, to learn it?

    Concerning the Wuhan virus and the gene-transfer injections meant to inoculate against this virus, I suggest this: discover through your own independent reasoning mind what sort of vaccines these are — their genus and differentia qua vaccines — and discover if there’s been enough time to test them for possible longterm side-effects and consequences. I encourage all people to seek to learn this.

    I encourage also — I very strongly encourage also — that all people to seek to discover if there are early-treatment protocols for the Wuhan virus, and ask: have these protocols been successfully, inexpensively, and actually used by many good doctors around the globe who in so using them saved lives?

    If so, why have these safe, effective, inexpensive, life-saving early-treatment protocols been suppressed?

    Ask always if what you’re being told, about possible side-effects and death and autoimmune disorders and so on — ask if what you’re being told by people in positions of power is accurate, and how might you best determine accurate from inaccurate?

    Is there good evidence showing that mass vaccinations drive new variants by selecting for them? Is it a coincidence that the new variants emerged concurrently with the first vaccination clinical trials?

    Why is open inquiry being deliberately shut-off — by social-media platforms and upon the recommendation of government agencies all across the world?

    Why on earth — why? — would anyone ridicule and marginalize parents who express safety concerns about their children being injected with a biologically active genetic material for a virus that is far more benign for children than the regular seasonal flu?

    Why ridicule and harass pregnant women for expressing similar concerns — especially knowing that lipid nanoparticles, which are precisely what these biologically active gene-transfer platforms are packaged in, cross the blood-brain barrier and the placenta?


    It is my firm conviction that this one thing alone — the concerted and global effort to shutdown open inquiry, whether through ridicule, marginalization, or outright censorship — is the total giveaway to this entire deadly farce.

    Have we been deliberately cutoff from certain knowledge-flows?

    I’m asking you here to seek to know answers — not just believe but know.

    It asks a lot, I do realize this. I truly do.

    It asks a great deal of one’s time and one’s individualized effort, because there is an incredible amount of blubber to flense through. But the stakes involved here are astronomical: the fate of human civilization hangs in the balance.

    What the world is facing right now is potential genocide on a scale never seen before. Ever.

    Never before in human history have billions of people been injected with a biologically active gene transfer platform and never has such a mass vaccination program occurred with such a paucity of long-term observational studies, and all for a virus that can be effectively treated with early, non-invasive treatment protocols which, in the experience of many, many doctors and their patients, have saved many, many lives.

    Never before.

    And I hope never again.

    Quoting this good doctor:

    “So don’t anyone tell me that without actually studying it, you know what this vaccine is going to do to the developing embryo. You do not! You have no idea. You reckless idiots! All you physicians who are giving it to pregnant women, you are absolute reckless idiots! You need to be strung up by your thumbs and struck off. Any females who are thinking of having this vaccine, who might get pregnant around the same time or who are already pregnant, please don’t. It might be fine. But you don’t really want ‘might be fine’ as the assurance. I’m very worried.”

    August 26th, 2021 | journalpulp | 4 Comments |

About The Author

Ray Harvey

I was born and raised in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado. I've worked as a short-order cook, construction laborer, crab fisherman, janitor, bartender, pedi-cab driver, copyeditor, and more. I've written and ghostwritten several published books and articles, but no matter where I've gone or what I've done to earn my living, there's always been literature and learning at the core of my life.

4 Responses and Counting...

  • STEVE BROWN 08.26.2021



  • Thank you, Ray, for a very thoughtful, truthful article.
    So sad that the French chose to listen to our “Disney doctors”
    rather than their own wonderful Nobel Prize virologist who could
    have steered them right from the start.

  • Thank you, Nina.

    Thank you.

    Dr. Luc Montagnier is about to be vindicated in extraordinary fashion.

Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required