Under the Microscope With the Fakeologist

It is not my intention to draw out this situation with Poornima Wagh. However, many have had questions about how certain events transpired and why we felt we needed to verify her credentials as well as the claims she had made regarding the groundbreaking research into 1,500 “SARS-COV-2” samples and the work with 18 scientists around the world investigating the contents of vaccines. I already explained the importance a few days ago in the article A Matter of Trust but it is apparent that many still have questions. Sadly, we all do at this stage. I will be posting a collection of interviews later in the week that myself and others tied to this situation have done with Regis Tremblay. The Fakeologist also reached out to me yesterday to see if I could clear up some of this confusion. It was a good conversation that hopefully can help shed some light for anyone who may still be confused. My hope is that we can all come together and move beyond this unfortunate chain of events and get back to focusing on exposing the pseudoscience known as virology.

FAK606-Mike Stone on Poornima Wagh



  1. Feedback is valid.
    While it may seem unfortunate, the event offers valid information from which we learn.
    That not everything is as it seems or is presented is why science exists!
    The nature of our mind is always being revealed by what we ‘see’ or believe, as well as individual contexts or justifications for WHY we behave as we do or did in specific circumstances.
    The idea of assigning blame as if to correct by penalty or invalidation is predicated on getting rid of guilted conflict to ‘others’.

    A strictly materialist mindset is itself predicated as a defence against the psyche, as if meanings are externally defined, programmed or conditioned.
    The externalisation of the mind is exemplified in virus theory, for the pathology is in the mind, not the physics or biology.
    The need for the virus and other masking devices is part of why they will not be dispelled by rational means, and why they will be protected by irrational and destructive means!
    However, for those who are moved to question and willing to look, the undoing of contagion fear is a significant release of conflict and burden, though what lies beneath will rise to awareness as the mask is removed.
    Merely switching to poisons in place of pathogens will not address our condition – but is a step in the right direction; towards addressing responsibility in both those involved and the underlying mindset that would ‘get’ for itself with disregard or direct attack on others and on wholeness of being.
    In the context of a misrepresentation, I reflect that our capacity to lose connection, sow doubt and division and identify in error that compounds to lies set as defences, is all founded on a wish to be what we are not, that sets a conflict between a true relational honesty and a mind set apart in private agenda of entanglement in lies.


  2. This is an interesting article with an important question.

    Is it ever ok to lie?

    “Is it ever morally permissible to tell a lie? On one end of the spectrum we find the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argues that it is never, under any circumstance, permissible to lie. To lie, according to Kant, would be to act in a way that is less than rational (hence, less than human) and to treat others as a means instead of an end. On the other end of the spectrum, the situational ethicist, the relativist, and the ethical egoist, may argue that lying is morally permissible at anytime and in any situation, given the desired outcome.

    Add God into the mix, and it would seem that we ought to side with Kant on this, albeit for different reasons. In the gospel of John we learn that Jesus is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14) and that lies come from the pit of hell: Satan himself is described as the Father of lies (John 8:44).

    The Christian then, it would seem, should not lie.

    The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer disagrees. . .”


    Liked by 1 person

    1. The idea of moral permission is externally derived. For sure, we find agreement that align with integrity as we are able and willing to abide and extend it. So moral and ethical thinking can reflect qualities of integrative being. But once authority is idolised or institutionalised there will be conflicts in which for example family, social and spiritual rules, mores or identities will not align. If protecting loved ones from thuggery should you tell thugs where you are hiding them (is absurd). But from the Law? May set a conflict of interests.
      However social masking in institutionalised lies are initiating a ‘waking up’ to an integrity of spirit or unified conscious purpose in place of a split mind between Caesar and God (as living or truly shared worth).
      True with-ness and worth-ship (worded to redeem their likeness) is not defined in or by image and form, but allows them to follow or reflect to eyes that see. For the projecting of a private unshared ‘reality as the ‘apple of the tree of judgement’ may operate as peer review of lockstepped ‘self’ interest as a collective unconsciousness that literally knows not what it does, while thinking to re-enact a past of separation trauma set in multilayered complex of deceits and defences… against truth.

      I may have previously linked this clip – but its goes to the heart of our capacity to join (sic) in unconscious entanglements under mutually reinforcing agreements or narrative cover stories that always set the ‘good’ in the reaction or framing to the evil. (Which drives narrative tension).

      A quality of coherence, resonance and wholeness of being can be referenced by many sketches, symbols or teachings but is a quality of peace without conflict. Self-honesty to our being – and not just to an inherited or acquired ruleset is the test of peace or dissonance – wherever each may perceive this to manifest – ie in our gut feeling or literal body tensions or emotional reactivity.

      As for the use of lies to protect lies set in a complex of identity in fear of disclosure; it runs as a survival mechanism. It also runs in an indifference or callous disregard for the lives of others – but then the survival complex is also a collective unfolding of themes through generations in which we participate.

      I value Jesus’ teaching on the paying of tax to a perceived oppressor (Caesar).
      The ongoing discernment of dues is a process of leaning into freedom.
      The most pernicious and destructive acts are committed under moral convictions or certainties, so I keep morality to each our own consistency of thought word and deed and never a stick by which to make truth a weapon or terror over others. Who lives by lies, dies by lies.


      1. Jesus’ ‘teaching’ about rendering unto Caesar was and is part of the crux (along with that dastardly stretch of verses in ‘Romans) of one of the biggest bernaysian psychological tricks ever pulled on ‘gentiles.’ All that ‘jesus’ (the good-cop elites) is really doing is saying, “don’t forget that we killed all of your people who refused to pay tribute to ‘Caesar,’ and we’ll do the same to you, see.”

        Let’s get real, here, brian. 🙂 The only reason we, now, agree with Jesus is because we are 100 generations removed from our freedom-insisting bloodlines that died for their freedom.

        So we “lean into” quote-unquote ‘freedom,’ right brian? Because that’s the best we can do, given what we are and where we’re at.

        Radical honesty is the bare minimum of what we should be capable of because the reason we ‘seekers’ have elevated truth, as an ideal form, above all, is because we don’t have freedom and, frankly, are in almost all cases incapable of such responsibilities as true freedom would impose upon us under natural law.


      2. I’m not interested to engage in the basis or framework that you trust as your meaning structure. It’s meaningless to my appreciation of joy in wholeness of being. Yes I know there is a world history – in fact many of them – and that these can define or produce who you are or can be – but my sense of what a Christed communication is, does not come from or validate that mindset or self and world. But is the way of means for its release to a re-cognition of who you are in truth that this world cannot contain – but can be blessed and transformed by.
        For sure – everything that comes into the ‘ego domain’ is subverted or weaponised and marketised to serve its agenda while that is the active purpose given priority in our mind. Others may choose this for themselves. I don’t want it. I don’t draw on spiritual sources as any appeal to authority but as succinct wisdom that stands or fails on its own merit.
        Just suppose the whole thing is a holohoax of self-programmed futility, but there is a key by which to release it from a light of awareness it seemed to block and set in conflict. I don’t mind what form that key takes for anyone or for me. What I value is an opening to felt recognition and connection that serves as reference point to evaluate an insanity I used to think was real and set over the living.
        Yes you can follow your themes because your find fulfilment there in your current sense of exploration. But I don’t see anything it offers me that I want.
        I love freedom in its extension. But I cant make anyone accept it!
        Willingness to live from freedom is always now. The stamp of the past usurps presence by extending past into future. Its a form of Self-evasion but will insist war is honesty and that slavery to its dictate is freedom.


      3. brian, the limits to growth are nested aren’t they? As above so below, my friend. This is why Wendell Berry advised us to grow like trees.


      4. What is your meaning for growth?
        A materially bounded closed system is an ego, a prison planet, an image and model to which an Expression of the Infinite is holding focus within.
        But while you want this your concept of growth is set externally.
        Ideas beget according to their kind and so yes there are limits that serve the exploration and experience we are having, but when you honour your life you are no longer fighting it.
        I read recently that the Fabian society which was a predecessor for the infiltration of influence of a socially engineered world had two core tenets:
        Finite resources, that demand competition or war for resources. War by all means is thus the nature of its ‘social agenda’. Yet war is the limit to growth for anything except that which feeds and supports it. The pathology is not viruses or human beings, but human thinking set in fear, pain and loss, that protects and perpetuates fear of pain and loss. Unless we release and are released of such a mindset.


      5. brian, thanks for your reply. your belief in a disembodied “Expression of the Infinite” being more real than holigraphic reality has zero basis in reason, so there is no reasoning with that belief. there’s nothing for me to work with.


  3. Good appearance overall. But one prominent gap, Mike. Except for a very brief mention of the stuff Mike Donio has brought up regarding Poornma Wagh’s science knowledge, without even being very specific about what that stuff was, you made it seem as if her one problem was being dishonest about her credentials and her background. And you said she was very knowledgeable and very informative. In fact, she got basic stuff wrong about her supposed specialty science, such as saying that you can see RNA and DNA segments in samples, when in fact additives are needed to change the RNA to DNA for those nucleic acid segments to be spotted. Or her apparent belief that there is only one version of SARS-CoV-2 in libraries, vs 28 by the end of January 2020, 12 million today.

    That’s the kind of stuff those people who are doggedly defending her, such as the Fakeologist’s friend John Lukacks (spelling?) are ignoring, making everything about credentials. There is a good discussion of the science here, including a pinned author comment in which he brings up Mike Donio.
    The Trout in the Milk. When I spoke to Poornima Wagh last week, a claimed double Ph.D., she didn’t know that there were multiple versions of SARS-CoV-2 in the genetic libraries. There are currently 12 million of them. Eric F. Coppolino, 9/3/22.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Jeffrey! I agree that I didn’t hit on her mistakes as much. I definitely agree that they are a concern but I know we all make mistakes sometimes when speaking. I hold her more to the errors she wrote down in her presentations such as with the cell culture mixing Vero and HeLa cells and culturing with trypsin. I wanted to focus more on her provable dishonesty as well as her questionable stories surrounding her research.


      1. It’s cool, Mike. It’s just that i’ve seen others make the dispute *entirely* about charges regarding her credentials, and insist her science is solid, people like Lee Merritt and the Fakeologist’s friend. You make a good point re errors in her presentation.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Poornima’s science was definitely not solid in many ways. I didn’t really feel like pouring through her presentations in order to document all of them. It has been too big of a distraction for me so I’m looking to move on. That being said, I’m excited to hear more of what Mike Donio has to say. 🙂


    1. This is the downside to making a counter claim – you can be pulled into having to substantiate it and subjected to every kind of diversionary delay, obfuscation and smear.

      Just rest in seeking proof of claim, while staying free of its corollaries – such as acting as if it is valid when it is unvalidated..

      If viruses didn’t exist human minds would have to create them.
      First as theory, then as insilico genetic models, now as man made genetic hacking models.

      Hacking along with fear of being hacked is the tech term for a deceiver.
      What goes round comes around. Will you catch it?


  4. There seems to be a difference in priorities between some of those who recognize the fallacy of the germ theory and those who warn of the dangers of the Covid vaccines while adhering to the germ theory. It is true that if individuals come to an understanding that the germ theory is false, then they will realize that taking vaccines is unnecessary. However, if they are having a problem rejecting the germ theory, they will, in all probability, take vaccines if they believe the vaccines will protect them from acquiring alleged diseases caused by alleged viruses. 

    There are numerous individuals who adhere to the germ theory but recognize that the Covid vaccines are a cut above ordinary vaccines, much in the same way that fentanyl is far more potent than heroin. This is to say that the Covid vaccines do far more damage than conventional vaccines, and are manufactured with the intent of doing maximum damage.

    Moreover, no vaccine can truly accomplish its prescribed purpose because there is nothing it can provide protection against, and all vaccines do damage to their recipients. But the damage done by Covid vaccines in comparison to traditional vaccines is like the difference between a local twister and a category five hurricane.

    Some of the anti-germ-theory proponents do not seem to stress this matter as much as the proponents of the germ theory do. The aforementioned individuals seem to view all vaccines in pretty much the same way, whereas the latter group’s focus is specifically on the Covid vaccines. 

    I believe, under the present circumstances, it is of paramount importance to stress the extreme danger posed by the Covid vaccines and to demonstrate specifically why they are dangerous. This should involve an analysis of the contents of the vaccines and their effects on those injected with them.

    Dr. Young has accomplished this task while maintaining the anti-germ theory position. He has set an excellent example of how to cite, present, and credit others with the specific evidence necessary to dissuade individuals disposed to accept Covid vaccines. He does this in the face of what amounts to a cross-examination by his interviewer.

    What he presents is what is badly needed-counter evidence to what is falsely called “the science,” and is sufficient to discredit the fact checkers, those who would accuse him of presenting disinformation, and those who remain silent in the face of accusations they could easily refute if they were willing to present the evidence supporting their claims that the Covid vaccines are safe.

    However, I am certain there will be those who will employ the attack-the-messenger strategy to distract individuals from considering the facts relevant to Covid vaccines. Their objective is to discredit the messenger and then claim that the message must also be discredited simply because it comes from a discredited source. By doing this, they imply that only saints can tell the truth, but the problem is that there are no saints in this world, and they ought to know.

    Dr Robert Young Confirms Tracking Nanoparticles in Shots


    Liked by 1 person

      1. Much that is presented to investors and to public attention is ‘Black box science’. That is to say its is a sealed unit to which only elite insiders have access. And even inner circles have only limited access.
        If you ponder this you will see that selling a controllable story is the key to attracting prioritised attention for both greed, profits linked to ‘threats and problems’ as the GoF running as ‘solutions’ that only have to hold as a narrative dictate through which any results are either milked as reinforcement to story or reassigned to a redefined set of ‘threats’.

        So the Graphene Flagship (investments) and the contextual setting of Biotech as The matrix for a sealed and captive energy/food source to which the human mind is contracted under coercion and deceit is the reinforcement or ratcheting convergence of an invested story of a materially defined consciousness set in predictive definitions as ‘control’ that literally costs awareness of presence as the unfolding of shared being, in exchange for a living death set in private lockstepped controls or paralysis under death set as power over living.

        What’s the reality?
        The nature of mind as a story construct is a nested set of dependencies, for if a fallacy is introduced at a fundamental level, all that proceeds is automatically shifted to express and reflect the decision to accept it true – even if occurring by unmindful reaction set by temporary distractions of a self inflation or shock.
        Fragmentation is not just an individual persons mind suffering dissociation, but their world. This synchronicity cannot be accounted for within the linear framing of a mind and world already set in reaction to its past as its present.

        But if we want to hold the experience of a fear real, we will attract and align the support for be-living it. This is to say fear can seem to possess or take over a mind that wants it. On surface we may assert we do NOT want it! But in practice our ‘solutions’ for getting rid of it or mitigating, fixing or escaping it are all ways of KEEPING it by hiding it – both hiding from it and hiding in it.

        Magical solutions are a two edged sword, for what we give power to, then has power over us. Giving power or priority to the mind of projected fears into the ‘unknown’ of a black box, is going to meet your own personal version of ‘room 101’ as the terrors by which to block the light of Creation – Mind as Infinite Creator that is recognised as peace within as as being, beneath the a-tensions of a mindset given priority.

        Our collective beliefs frame our shared experience regardless we have personal, ideological or cultural ‘rules and filters’ of currently active accepted identity. It is pointless to pretend assertions of truth when our experience and behaviours reveal we don’t believe it! So the underlying payoffs or subconscious-beliefs that can seem to belie our thinking we know, are the rightful object of curiosity or self-enquiry. Even if we say ‘there is no virus!’ does the underlying fear of contagion operate because at some level is served us to distance from the hateful, or join others in suffering, Perhaps to mask in socially accepted respite? Or cast blame as the escaping of unsettling or disturbing conflicts of doubt and division? There are as many ‘reasons’ for ‘why’ as there are people, because we are sparks of the Creator – even in masking denials serving private or personal agenda.

        So whatever is going on as empirical and reasoned scientific enquiry of our world, needs go hand in hand with self-enquiry as the aligning to a prior awareness – IF we love truth, because it is true.
        The phrase, don’t let truth get in the way of a good story is usually in jest. But when we are aware of story as story, we are not phished to react in ways that invest our love and life in a mis-taken identity and its inheritance.

        The wish to control reality is masked in a mind controlled. What reveals when the ‘controls’ are no longer employed or invoked, because we are ready or willing to release a game set deadly serious?


      2. It is true that the covid vaccines are actually gene therapy and not a traditional vaccine. They even changed the definition of a vaccine to incorporate the use of the so-called mRNA technology. All of the courts, including the supreme Court, that have heard cases concerning the covid vaccines have never addressed this issue. In fact, they validated gene therapy as a vaccine by their judicial decisions. No evidence was introduced or considered in regard to the contents contained in the covid vaccines. The covid vaccine manufacturers refuse to allow any independent research into their product.

        Here’s some additional information concerning graphene oxide and the covid vaccines.

        Graphene Oxide Nanosheets Interact and Interfere with SARS-CoV-2 Surface Proteins and Cell Receptors to Inhibit Infectivity


        Differential Cytotoxicity of Different Sizes of Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles in Leydig (TM3) and Sertoli (TM4) Cells




        PABLO CAMPRA, identified and evidenced the existence of graphene in the vaccines covid.



  5. The pantheistic/pantheistic belief that we are sparks of the Creator has zero basis in the Reasoning function which is the function responsible for the ability to mistakenly/falsely believe in ‘spark theory.’ Humans are highly evolved biology which itself evolved out of Created and evolved inorganic holography. We are creatures (of Creation) according to true reason, because that’s self-evident. What we absolutely cannot reason, obviously, is that Creation IS the Creator itself and therefore ‘we’ ourselves are divine. Seeing ourselves as essentially divine is the neopagan ‘get out of jail free’ card that the major religions learned to employ from the original paganisms. In Christianity it read as, faith in Christ will forgive you your (ecological/earthly) ‘sins’ and (the) heaven(ly fire) will await you(r divine spark). Signed, sealed, and delivered.

    We need to grow out of the devolutionary need for that (in)security blanket.


    1. I think that was to me Reante.
      Your thinking is your freedom or your compulsion.
      There is awareness that alights in its delight – or as it defines itself to be.
      You can make versions of everyone and believe them.
      But nothing is shared, extended, created.
      Have a good day.


      1. it was to you, brian.

        I could review our conversation for you and it would be evidence that you are avoiding Reason by ‘making’ this about me. Masking, in your words. Just as was the case the other month when you silently conceded the point and took a break for a while. I hope you don’t take a break this time.

        Reality is a unitary objectivism. By definition this means that there is only one true patterning of reality that basis itself on reasoned observations of cause and effect. Since reason is the evolutionary guide, reason be the medium for patterning.

        Feel free to not avoid reasoning when the going gets tough. Feel free to get going when the going gets tough.

        Thinking, brian, is not your freedom. Freedom is having the balls to follow truth wherever it leads no matter your previous investments, and to do so as best as you can given your current circumstances, and always trying to move the needle on those circumstances towards truth.

        good day to you too my friend.


  6. we’re earth people, friend. that means the ecology is the common referent to all peoples. inside that referent is multitudinous cause and effect, and the patterning of it. if you refuse to ground yourself to the common referent then you and me won’t commune to our potential because your referent isn’t common to all peoples including myself.

    there’s only one common denominator. global fascism is a distant second lol.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: