Setting the Record Straight With Regis Tremblay

After everything that happened with the Poornima Wagh situation, there seemed to be a lot of confusion and anger over how the events transpired. Fortunately Regis Tremblay, the man who introduced Poornima to audiences, was more than happy to let this be a two-sided conversation in order so that both parties involved could share information with those who still had unanswered questions. This way, people could weigh the evidence and decide for themselves, which is a fair and balanced approach. Regis was also kind enough to have us on to talk about our own efforts to get the message out on the fraud of virology. I wanted to provide these interviews in one easy to find place. I also want to thank Regis for allowing us a voice on his platform. I feel that he handled this situation in a very honorable fashion and I appreciate his willingness to share our stories with the world at large.

Poornima Wagh Takes the Stand to Defend Herself

Accused of being a fraud, charlatan and pathological liar, Poornima asked to defend her self. I am not going to judge because I do not have the wisdom of Solomon, nor a crystal ball. I have invited her accusers to come on the show Sunday or Monday to present their position.

Eric Coppolino’s and Bill Huston’s articles are here:


https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/charlatans-web

https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/p/poornima-wagh-is-a-fraud

Investigating Poornima Wagh

Eric Coppolino, 39 year investigative reporter discusses his background and research in “vetting” Poornima Wagh. He is a specialist in mass poisoning incidents and associated lawsuits.

He is the founder and editor of Covid19 News, and the author of the Covid Chronology, a day-by-day account of lockdowns and claimed pandemic back to 2006. He hosts Planet Waves FM on the Pacifica Network and has covered covid every day for the past 916 days.

Three Team Members Who Vetted Poornima Wagh

William Huston, Christine Massey, and Mike Stone share their participation in the vetting of Poornima Wagh, their thoughts, reasons, and feelings about this unfortunate situation.

The Pseudoscience of Virology

Mike Stone talks about “Virology” as a Pseudoscience. His website, www.viroliegy.com is an important resource of EVERYTHING related to Covid-19 SARS-2″ viruses, masks, PCR tests, the transmission myth, and much more.

200 FOI Requests – 40 Countries: No Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Exists

Canadian biostatistician, Christine Massey, has accumulated FOI requests from over 200 institutions in 40 countries: not one has proof of any scientific papers, using legitimate methods, that SARS-CoV-2 exists.

Also the No Virus Challenge, an organic group of doctors, scientists, and lay people showing that there is no proof viruses exist. Her website: www.TinyURL.com/NoRecordFound

42 comments

  1. This situation has become somewhat enigmatic from my standpoint. One aspect of it that concerns me is whether or not Poornima entered into any agreement or any contractual arrangement whereby she agreed to certain terms or conditions when answering the questions presented to her. And if so, was she paid or compensated in any other manner for the answers she provided to the questions that were presented to her? Essentially, I’m trying to determine whether or not she obligated herself in some way, and, if so, in what manner and to what extent.

    Like

    1. Paid by who? Were you thinking she was paid by Regis or someone else? While it’s possible someone paid Poornima, they did not get a very good return on their investment, especially if her last interview was supposed to reestablish any sense of credibility. She didn’t come across as prepared at all. My guess is that she was a lone-wolf looking for attention but one can never be sure.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. When I watch these videos, all I see are two people talking. One is usually asking questions and the other is providing answers. I don’t evaluate the whole interview as being either accurate or inaccurate. I can only evaluate each statement as to whether it’s accurate or inaccurate or possibly inconclusive.

        If a particular point interests me, I may investigate it to determine if it is conducive to anything. When people present their credentials, it really doesn’t tell me anything about whether the other things they are going to say are accurate or inaccurate. I’m really not listening to people to evaluate whether or not what they say about themselves is accurate or not, because I’ve never found it to be conducive to anything that I’m interested in.

        When I say conducive to something that I’m interested in, that means I have already set my priorities about what I want to obtain information about. If the video doesn’t offer me any information with regard to the priorities I’ve set, then I’m just wasting my time listening to it.

        In this case, Poornima has claimed to have certain credentials from a particular institution, and the institution has not verified her claim. If the information she provided is inaccurate, I have no way of knowing that for certain. And it is not among my priorities to determine whether it is accurate or not.

        The other things that she made statements about are within my priorities. These are the things that I will evaluate as to whether they are accurate, inaccurate, or inconclusive. In this way, I am free from making any moral judgments. If I do that, then it would require me to have much more information about the circumstances pertaining to the interview, her personal life, her motives, and any miscalculation that she may have made.

        This does not mean that I will not make a moral judgment. I may, but only if I believe what she has done has injured someone. For me, if there is no injured party, then there is no basis for a judgment, unless I think that the statements made are designed to cause an injury. Then I would have to determine whether there was an intent to injure. Nevertheless, others are certainly free to form their own opinions about this matter, irrespective of my priorities.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I agree that credentials are not entirely important as to whether someone is speaking the truth. However, in the case of Poornima, her credentials became central to the truth regarding claims she made about groundbreaking work she did in the past as well as currently with numerous people around the world. As she was unwilling to confirm her credentials, let alone her own research, it unfortunately cast into doubt much of the claims she made which were her own, including the vaccine findings as well as the lack of “SARS-COV-2” in any sample she tested. It became clear she had made up stories to sell her own credibility, which sadly was never necessary.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Mike, you sure got across a LOT of info to Regis, stuff like the Rosenau Experiments. He had no idea. But an example of how it’s hard to move people comes towards the end. He is *determined* to hang on to the idea of bio-weapons and bio-labs because ….. he believes the Russian government, it never lies, and it says it has evidence. The same government which is pushing jabs which even he knows are sketchy, pushing the same lockdown measures, same tests,…. as everywhere else, which he knows are lies, and yet perfectly telling the truth here.

    Bio-labs? More likely they are either chemical weapons labs, or (i think increasingly likely) places where bio-electric sensors are being developed which will be used as weapons of sorts, but surveillance weapons, intended to keep populations under watch as well as collect people’s data so as to create normative behavior and monitor it in the digital prisons they plan to turn our cities and towns and even our living places into. Several facilities in my town, Berkeley, are doing extensive research on this. Whatever you think of Alison McDowell, she has collected enormous amounts of data on these facilities right here, a map shows the main area involved, in west Berkeley, a mile or so west of my place.
    https://wrenchinthegears.com/2022/06/20/computational-life-and-industrial-design-erode-the-boundaries-of-our-being-synthetic-pretenders-part-7/

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I agree on the chemical weapons hypothesis, but not the other one you posted. I think its more likely, like Ukraine, that its a Money laundering scam under the guise of “research.”

      Like

      1. There may be some of that too. What’s wrong with the bio-electronics angle? The labs in Berkeley are really doing it.

        Like

    2. I like Regis but I definitely disagree with him here. While I do believe the American goverment has propagandized us to fear Russia, I think it is unwise to trust any government to have the best interests of the people and to present the truth, even the Russian government.

      Like

      1. The Russian government has in fact been very egregious in its lying about the virus/lockdown/jabs op, and Regis even hinted at that during the show. Cognitive dissonance at work.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Has anyone ever heard of this virus? I’m doing some research into it, but I can’t seem to find out much about it. What really is causing this condition?

    La Crosse virus is the second-most common virus in the US spread by mosquitoes – and can cause severe neurological damage in rare cases

    https://theconversation.com/la-crosse-virus-is-the-second-most-common-virus-in-the-us-spread-by-mosquitoes-and-can-cause-severe-neurological-damage-in-rare-cases-184412

    “. . .A few months later, the Laudicks learned from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that an illness called La Crosse disease, contracted from the bite of a mosquito, had caused Leah’s death. . .

    . . .La Crosse disease is easy to misdiagnose, in part because its symptoms can be easily confused with those of other illnesses, such as the flu. Moreover, the only way to test for La Crosse involves sending samples of blood and cerebrospinal fluid to the CDC. . .”

    Some references:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10428210/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255902/

    Like

  4. Nobody has all of the answers. How can we allow new info to get into our brains if we keep screeninng it through the info we were convinced was correct?
    We are not each others enemies. The global parasites are our common enemy and we have to laugh when we catch ourselves fighting each other.

    Here is a conversation with two Doctors who disagree on what we are calling viruses.

    DR. JUDY MIKOVITS AND DR. ANDREW KAUFMAN INTERVIEW
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/i56x62EskwRI/

    Like

  5. What might have risen from this episode is the recognition that our critical guard can drop when something is what we want to hear. We turn a blind eye! This in turn results from identifying as a ‘side’ in a war rather than side with truth and freedom.

    The narratives that are invoked and engaged in to account for the motivations and behaviours of others–who for whatever reason are invested in a particular belief, model or presentation of ‘science’ that is not open to question–are conjured up from elements in our own minds to assert a framework of thought as if unquestionably true. Which leads to accusations and counter accusations such as to further polarise, fragment and break possibilities of any opening of trust of communication within or between those involved.

    Why do many refuse to openly take up questioning the ‘virus’? Because as they currently perceive the situation, they believe it makes their ‘side’ weaker in a war that thus demands a unified narrative dictate. Havent we seen this pattern somewhere? Likewise with various people who for whatever reasons that may include an intent to undermine or may not, can nonetheless be seen as ‘enemies’ to be excluded from the ‘side’ – except everyone starts to accuse everyone else of being bad, mad, wrong or heretical to demonic for embodying such a role in their ‘battle’.

    Better by far to focus on who you are, through what you love and value without giving value to what doesn’t serve or what you don’t accept, join with or invest into.

    But those who seek controversy and conflict to engage in will find it, by projecting their attack onto whoever or whatever serves their current choice or attempted fulfilment.

    The issue I see is of opening the questionable beliefs that are given ‘scientific’ credibility to light because they are running as a primary basis for deeply corrupting and destructive outcomes that surpass our capacity to imagine as human consequence. It should be obvious that this is not about a virus but about a mindset of invested belief set over and driven by fear of pain of loss.

    Like

    1. “side with truth” on a personal level for certain – to thine own self be true. But is anyone obligated to tell the truth to someone who has no right to hear it?

      Like

      1. I would get your meaning further as to who has no right to an honest witness?
        My sense of contextual determinant is if someone feigns questions as a means to trick or deceive. Or asserts statements in the form of a leading question. These are not really asking anything, and so do not require answer.

        Regardless beliefs, the account of Jesus is an exposition of a wise response to both ploys as well as to ‘actors’ or hypocrites whose word is dissociated from their behaviours.

        If it is none of your business to know then I am not obliged to tell you.
        If you refer to details of claimed qualifications, then if such are claimed as a basis of authority, then she is obliged to substantiate or retract the claim.
        (Which must be considered void if not shown to be true, just as the claim for isolating pathogens or determining that they cause disease or are infectious agents).

        Because I do not see a valid scientific basis to support the circular reasoning for invested models that are revealed unverified and lacking definite support, I expect there to be various strategies of denial. These can come out of the field, because the investment in such beliefs and their solutions is as deep in the people as it is in the profiteers and social engineers.

        My sense of truth is relational and not external as if an object without living context. Internalised lie generates ‘externalised truth’ and never the twain shall meet.

        Like

  6. Consent must be given before any records of Poormina Wagh attending the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine can be given out. I have written to London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and this is what they said:

    “Thanks for your reply. Please note, the public can utilise the below links to search previous Alumni/theses. However not all Alumni will upload their theses: research online and The British Library EThOS

    As mentioned, the institution does not release any information without consent owing to GDPR and Data Protection acts, however there may be rare instances whereby this can be waived, if it is a legal/police request done via the correct channels.”

    Very best,

    Student Records

    How were you able to verify that there is no evidence that she holds a PHD degree, if in order to do that students must give consent? I’m trying to follow Eric Coppolino advise and also verify.

    Like

    1. I’m not sure why you have received a different response. I’ve had a few people who inquired with the LSHTM who recieved responses like this:

      “Thank you for your email. I can confirm that nobody by the name of Poornima Wagh has obtained a degree from our institution.

      Very best,

      Student Records

      London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
      Email: studentrecords@lshtm.ac.uk

      Web:  www.lshtm.ac.uk”

      The other evidence against Poornima’s credentials is her own defense (or lack thereof). If she had them, Poornima could have easily produced not only her PhD’s but also her thesis when asked by both Eric Coppolino and Regis Tremblay. Instead, Poornima stated she would not share this evidence and decided to quit doing interviews/presentations all together. Personally, if I was accused of not being honest about my credentials, I would immediately share them in order to prove my detractors wrong. Poornima did no such thing and instead in her last interview, she accepted the label of a fraud and apologized to Regis. Putting all of this information together provides a clearer picture as to what is going on. Unless Poornima produces evidence of her credentials, thesis, research, etc., we must take it that she was dishonest about them all.

      Like

    2. After your response, I decided to follow up myself by sending this e-mail:

      Hi,

      I am sure you have been asked this a few times already but I would like to verify if the claims are accurate. 

      Would you be able to confirm whether Poornima S Wagh was awarded with two PhD’s by your institution at any time as well as what those PhD’s, if any, were for?

      I have had people share responses from your institution stating that no one by that name was ever awarded any PhD’s and I have also had someone share a response from your institution stating that this information could not be verified without permission. I hope to clear this matter up. Thanks so much for your time!

      -Mike Stone

      This was the response that I recieved almost immediately:

      Dear Mike

      Thanks for your email, both stand as correct, as a first step we always require students to release consent, however where a need arises to clarify claimed affiliations with the School, we can verify this depending on the circumstances.

      In answer to the below, I can confirm that nobody by the name of Poornima Wagh has obtained a degree from our institution.

      Many thanks

      Sam

      Student Records

      London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

      Tel: 020 7299 4647

      Email: studentrecords@lshtm.ac.uk

      Like

      1. Mike

        Nice work. If you want something done right do it yourself.

        Does anyone think it’s possible that someone upstairs is leaning on the school to dissociate from her. If that was the case it might go a long way to explaining her otherwise deeply suspicious pleading of the 5th amendment like she is.

        Was she an (unwitting?) bellwether in order to get a count on the ‘terrain-open’ (open to terrain theory) subflock that could be fed into the algorithms, for future management purposes? Behavioral sorting.

        Like

      2. I doubt there was anyone upstairs making the LSHTM disavow Poornima. If that was the case, she could easily sue them for lying. All she would need to do is produce her two PhD’s and her thesis.

        Like

      3. Well, if they’re leaning on the school then Poornima, being in intelligent woman, would feel them leaning on the school as them really leaning on her, indirectly, by reading between the lines. And if she didn’t pick up on that, then they would be more direct about it.

        After all, she did say she’s giving up on the work and moving back to India.

        Like

      4. Poornima giving up and going back to India is most likely due to having been exposed. She knew her game was over as she could not provide any proof disputing the accusations made against her. It wasn’t the LSHTM vetting her, it was an independent group of researchers. If we hadn’t taken action, she most likely would still be out there doing interviews/presentations whether the LSHTM liked it or not.

        Like

      5. When I say upstairs im not talking about the dean of student affairs or whatever, or the Board – I’m talking about the upstairs above that.

        Like

      6. I understood what you meant. If her story was true, Poornima had already put herself out there in harms way by admitting that she and 4 others had the documents that the FBI raided their offices for. It stretches believability that she would then be afraid due to LSHTM disavowing her by way of orders from the higher ups when she was not afraid of announcing to the FBI she had the goods as well as knowing about teams members, including her PI, mysteriously dying before that.

        Like

      7. She mentioned her parents were coming to visit. It’s one thing to risk one’s own life for a (pretty important) cause and another to risk your family’s lives. We can’t know the lived, internal dynamics of how things played out, so I don’t think it necessarily stretches believability.

        She could also be an agent herself, and this is her cover story and swan song, now that the behavioral sorting is complete and the machines of loving grace are applying their algorithms. So long and thanks for all the phish.

        Like

      8. I’m trying to stick to what we know and not speculate. It appears from the evidence that she was dishonest about her credentials and her research. I will definitely change my tune and offer an apology to her if she ever does verify her credentials/research but that seems unlikely at this point.

        Like

  7. Thank you for your quick response, perhaps I was not clear with the school when I ask in order to verify I will formulate my e-mail exactly how you have asked the question. And yes I agree after seeing the video that she seemed hesitance, and did not try to defend herself, which seemed not professional, since all she had to do was produce her PHD, or even say what her decertation and when she defend it

    Liked by 1 person

  8. My conclusion concerning the Poornima affair.

    Poornima said she couldn’t reveal her sources because under the circumstances there would be a great deal of personal risk involved for the people she claimed were involved. Nevertheless, she would, at some point, have to produce some evidence in order to back up her claim. Her credentials would be important if she was a central figure organizing the research.

    I suspect there has been a great deal of research, but how well it is organized and whether or not she’s a part of it I don’t know. I could speculate and say maybe she knows someone that is involved in some research and that the information is not public at this time due to a risk assessment on the part of the researchers.

    I really got the impression that none of that mattered to her because her objective seemed to be to warn people about the dangers of the vaccines. On the surface, it would appear that she did exaggerate about her credentials because no one could verify them.

    She seemed quite knowledgeable, although there were some inaccuracies in her statements. I also got the impression that she had been involved in some form of education in the field, but perhaps she realized she couldn’t continue and obtain the credentials she initially sought from the institution because of her inability to conform to the requirements necessary. In other words, she probably couldn’t just go along with the indoctrination without questioning it, and then it became evident that she would never support it. Under these circumstances, no institution would be willing to provide credentials to someone who refused to accept what they were teaching. They would do everything to run them out. 

    Of course, all of this is just speculation on my part. It’s sort of reading between the lines and based on my personal worldview. If she hadn’t demonstrated a high degree of knowledge in the field, then I wouldn’t even consider this a possibility. 

    I think another issue that needs to be addressed here is the credibility of these institutions that teach virology and even biology. Who is validating them? They get their funding from organizations that have an obvious conflict of interest. They’re not likely to bite the hand that feeds them, or to certify anyone associated with their institution that rejects its doctrine, if they can avoid it. Nevertheless, once a person obtains certification in the form of credentials, then it would probably be difficult for the institution to deny it, especially if someone were to work in that field for a period of time.

    I have heard claims similar to the ones she made from far more reliable sources. But with all of the secrecy surrounding the Covid operation, the suppression of alternative views, the deliberate concealment of evidence, and so many afraid to come forth with evidence, it is unlikely there will ever be any official report on the facts concerning the vaccines or the virus.

    The 9/11 anniversary is a reminder of how the government, and the system that is dependent upon it, will never admit to what really happened.

    Like

    1. That’s a good point, George, she did say something about being a credit short or something like that, from her degree, didn’t she? And she stated that as far as she’s concerned she has a degree. That would be my perspective, too, if I was her.

      Like

  9. Obviously the legitimate “movement” – such as it is – has outted an _agent_. There are only a couple of possibilities, with now the revelations clear that Poornima is in fact a fraud:
    Either…
    1. She’s terribly mentally ill
    …or, she revealed it in her first statements, “my dad worked for Pfizer…”
    2. … and is thus an agent, working for the opposition, obviously seeking to discredit the very assertions she purported to support.
    Apparently, although there is gravity around many of the findings of luminaries such as Dr. Andrew Kaufmann, the obvious point, that “conspiracy theory,” is the correct theory to understand the insanity of our world, is still too tough to swallow for many.
    Celebrate that we dodged this obvious and desperate assault on our credibility. Now the question is: Who is Poornima Wagh?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I know you guys are worried about this incident hurting the movement but I think the way this was handled was actually highly impressive and speaks to the integrity of the people involved.

    You guys did not allow this individual with highly appealing-sounding claims to sabotage your work. Instead you did your due diligence, swiftly debunked the infiltrator, exhibiting the same commitment to the truth you maintain in your laser focused debunkings of establishment pseudoscience.

    Definitely impressed me.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks you! We definitely were concerned with the blowback but we also knew that it needed to be done. The claims she made were too big to just let it go. Vetting PW was about protecting the integrity of the message and its messengers. Obviously, we all went in with healthy skepticism of PW but we had hoped that the process would result in a different outcome and she would prove herself legit. Sadly that was not the case and while people were upset, I think the majority understood that it needed to be done and those who don’t understand right now will eventually down the road.

      Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: