You doxxed her?! Really bad. What’s your name? Would you like to come on my podcast and discuss this with her face to face? Very easy to mud-sling behind an alias. She’s entitled to her opinions, even if you don’t agree with them. She has done nothing to deserve having her private details disclosed publicly.
EDIT : This post being long and substack being buggy lately, you might have to click on "share comment" - then copy the URL in a browser - to read in full that I accepted your offer.
Hello, Mary.
What's with the "anti-anon" trend lately, from people close to Sasha? In 2022 she was aware anons were useful & should be protected. In 2026 she is publishing an article attempting to dox Jikkyleaks, synchronized with "Sense Receptor" for Christmas & the new year. What has changed ?
I'm not sure, reading your comment, if you read the article, or simply went with Sasha's version.
Firstly, the only details I disclosed are those necessary to the comprehension of her persona - I of course left many private details aside, when they had no public interest.
Secondly, I know that Sasha has been pushing the line that I "published her address, vacation home address, her children's addresses and a lot of private information" - given that she told me herself, prior to realize who she was talking to.
Needless to say this is false - as anyone gifted with a set of eyes can see. As she admitted shortly afterwards - when my article became a "mostly flattering piece", where I only "lied 5 or 6 times in it".
And, needless to say, she was unable to quote a single information incorrect when I offered to correct these - or to point to a non-public (recent) detail disclosed. Cf. here & up.
Thirdly, she is entitled to any opinion she wants as long as these opinions aren't blatant lies which she refuses to correct when it's politely explained to her. Otherwise that's being called a "disinformation agent", not a journalist.
Lastly, I already agreed to debate Sasha (Saturday 8AM Pacific time, 5pm Paris time). I'm perfectly fine with doing it on your platform, provided that I'll stay anonymous for as long as I'm not doxxed myself - like so many of my colleagues have been lately.
The debate's quality would probably benefit from your questions and your moderation - so if Sasha is fine for it, let's change the venue to your platform, at the time which will be most convenient for the both of you - I'll adjust.
anons that run smear campaigns should not be protected. You are a smear op, hired by the military pharma cartel. You attack, smear, run nasty swarms, lie to people constantly and create chaos. That's your job, I get it. Just pointing out, nobody is confused about your "usefulness", and to whom specifically - you have Bourla as the banner on your profile. Thanks for making it clear who you work for and whom you are useful to, useful idiot.
I have Bourla as my banner because his retarded staged "reveal" of the efficacy is completely dismantled by the work that my colleagues & myself have provided.
You know, in that article you acknowledged as entirely correct.
You have a vibrant imagination, Sasha. That's your advantage against me, you absolutely don't need to work to know people. Or to provide a single receipt.
That, or you consider that you can slander anyone, and never care to provide evidence for anything which goes through your mind. It works well with the simple minded, but you're not talking to the right audience, right now, people can see how transparent you are.
The only issue with that tactic is that every of your attempt to insult me ends up amusing me terribly.
backpedal harder. You are clearly associated with Bourla, who is a defendant in the Dutch case, and it's clear our expert team is over the target. Please learn to be less obviously desperate. I never debated your little "data analyses", I stipulate that they are correct, but entirely useless.
Anyone entering her name in Google can find that information, on the fact that her address is in a *footnote*
Not to mention that Sasha herself communicates gladly on her various properties.
And re her daughter's identity, you probably haven't studied the case much if you think that a 1 million followers teenager who ends up being instrumental in the censorship of YouTube which has been then extended with full force during Covid isn't relevant. Or if you think that two people pushed by Alex Jones within a so short window is purely coincidental.
Meanwhile her (adult) daughter is a public figure and mentioning these facts is directly relevant to people wishing to appraise Sasha’s actions.
Well, "anyone with a brain" can judge who is telling the truth & presenting receipts or not.
Could you explain how I'm "doxing" someone who prides herself not to be anon & organizing information which are in the public domain ?
I'm - personally - anon because it allows me to be more efficient by not being personally harassed (as have been so many of my colleagues). Plus I absolutely don't consider that a name is a guarantee of anything - many are using aliases pretending that it's their name (because none checks) ; and many are polluting the scene while being obviously not worried about being sued themselves (like Sasha or Jane Ruby).
Could you explain how you feel entitled to my identity, while I have always constrained myself to provide the proof for everything I publicly say and that I owe you absolutely nothing ?
Mary, there is no doxing in this article, it lays out in clear, with extensive linked references, that Sasha engages in promulgating serious misinterpretations about the contents of vaccine vials, e.g., they contain graphene nanobots, based on poorly misinterpreted dark field microscopy images of cholesterol crystals.
How do I know the cuboid aggregations are cholesterol? It's because I was the first to live stream the opening of sealed (chain of custody vials), with the appropriate lab based analytic hardware, i.e., Raman spectroscopy & SEM/EDX. My access to sealed vaccine vials was also pivotal in allowing Kevin McKernan to prove that sealed, chain of custody vials contained DNA contamination.
Which speaking of DNA, Sasha spews out demonstrably wrong claims about DNA not being real, despite the canon of work which shows repeatable data with respect to biochemistry, and direct measurement of the molecule through Atomic Force Microscopy; which then transfers over into her claim that viruses are not real.
It's these claims that make Sasha an untrustworthy, and likely a Pfizer-subversion provocateur with respect to the science of COVID, and the vaccines. I would suggest reading the article, so you can see the clearly laid out evidence of her kookification strategy, with those that actually try to move the COVID science forward at great risk to themselves.
Thank you Dr. Bowden. Pierre DMed me, he agrees to come on your podcast, please let me know when is convenient for you (I sent you a text). The conditions is he appears on video, you have control of the microphone.
I knew from Sasha's reaction to this article that we had missed a few important things - and while I subscribe to your Substack I had completely missed this incident - an ocean of shame on me (and on those who coded Substack's search) 🤦♂️
Happy to hear that she is as lovely as always ; with the traditional DARVO-from-hell, primal insults and childish deflections 😂
We share some thoughts on "who might be involved behind the account", I see. But given I had no serious substantiation I left that aside. I'll have a deeper look on these angles you raised - and I hope you learnt a few things reading this one too !
Yes I had done similar research but left it out of mine as well. Their original Californian bungalow was a very modest one but what a world of good, for your bank account, raising and selling these no good companies can do.
Wow. How can one person be so wrong over and over and over? And lie over and over and over. And resort to foul language and ad hominems over and over and over. Something is seriously wrong with her!
Thank you for this gigantic dig and effort - I personally find it very valuable and relevant even that many unfortunately are so often unwilling to ponder these aspects and "corners" of the fight. This is essential; and I think it is also so important that as many as possible understand the concept of pre-sabotaged attempts of official accountability as early as possible, before we go further with more.
Sasha blocked me after I repeatedly called out her hyperbolic assertions. I gave her the benefit of the doubt for 2 years since I knew her from my role on a Cardiovascular Advisory Committee at a big pharma company who used iCardiac services. She kept getting deeper in the weeds and conspiracies as time went on. She's smart and apparently wealthy but she has done only harm to the meaningful reform she pursues so rabidly. She's not alone. All her cronies are complete whack jobs too.
That's the point. She takes on "friends" who she targets as marks, and who invariably are credible opponents of the pharma industry. And by doing so she the discredits them by association when she starts with "DNA is not real and the nanobots are exploding". Those that see through her are instead targeted directly with threats to registration or ad hominem and targeted harassment
I think she knows that I am neither very pro or con the pharma industry having spent 37 year in it and actually understanding what and how they conduct their business. Her issue with me was that she didn’t like when I called out her exaggerations and conspiracies. She fancies herself a former “pharma executive” but never really participated in drug development outside of her role as a vendor liaison for business development. Even when called out after saying that 100% of childhood cancers are caused by vaccines, she doubled down on that ridiculous position. Then, she called me names and blocked me after saying that I stalked her.
Yes she is a DARVO queen. Having gone to multiple attempts to doxx me and anybody else she thinks is related, and reposting obviously defamatory graphics from a group of stalkers who went after the family of people they thought were me she then complained when people pointed out who her other glowie family members were.
She is now becoming unhinged. I guess when you do a deal with the devil it can never end in happiness.
Thank you so much for this. I followed literally everyone who spoke against the MSM narrative and against the shots in early 2020 and very quickly dropped all the ones you expose here, and I don't even recall exactly why now except I discerned a bunch of "hooey" in there somewhere. Dr. Malone (and a couple others) though, I have followed from before anyone knew who they even were, and still do. And have gained utmost respect for them (and people like yourself). While the others exposed here have fallen yet further and further into the mire of fake news and views, and totally discredited themselves.
Your paragraph: "But we do not need to diagnose what is in someone’s heart to judge what is on the record."
Reminded me of Matthew 12 and various Proverbs - Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
If the heart is full of ego and clicks for money that's what is going to come out.
I have a dream to someday create a social media and peer-reviewed publishing platform for the top 1 to 10%, based on the deflationary principle of "90% of people should talk 90% less 90% of the time".
Sounds interesting, ... but also sounds like a platform for only the most ego inflated a-holes, making it seldom used and even less seldom viewed. I could be wrong though.
you just ahve to design so quality behavior is not self-asserted, but dispassionately regulated by the platform and its other users. THe only people who will thrive are quality contributors
Please check my Twitter / X for more details about Larysa Latypova. The Aspen Institute is certainly not only a normal Think Tank at all. Especially not the one in Kyiv, Ukraine; that's for sure.
''She used the lowest quality of proof to promote the most extreme conclusions.''
And when i showed Sasha the world's only official covid inquiry to reveal the truth to the lockdown GOLD STANDARD evidence submitted under oath which fully vindicates the sceptic stance from 2020 she replied to me with ''i'm sorry the Scottish COVID inquiry is fake.''
I've been "account restricted" on Twatter shortly after posting, and my substack notifications are pretty much gone, but indeed the bitdefender joke is new.
In X I am getting: "Your account maybe does not have the privilege to perform these actions" when I try to post (mostly about peace :D) .. but then again; I am in Europe.
Yes, it is a lie. The logic is simple here. If someone claims that some specific variable exists, then they have to prove it first. And if they claim that some specific variable does something specific, they also have to prove that. Obviously, a proof that a variable exists comes before a proof of what a variable does. If those are not done, then all further claims about such a variable are irrelevant. Thus, in the case of genetics, all talks about DNA, RNA, genomes, genes, genetic sequences, genetic libraries, the process of sequencing of DNA and RNA, and the functions of structures made of nucleotides do not hold water without proof of nucleotides. To date, nucleotides have never been isolated and proven to exist. They are assumed. Thus, genetics is assumed.
Agree that Robert Malone exhibits arrogance, it's seems to be a common theme amongst many of the scientists who have turned against pharma. Pretty sure he hasn't tried to doxx any of us or threaten to kill anyone though. Sasha spends an inordinate amount of time trying to discredit him and comes after anyone that dares defend him.
Mathew Crawford, whom I used to subscribe to, knew Malone and had contact with him early on (in all this), had a very interesting experience with him. Not positive. And I've no reason to think MC was lying.
I've never trusted thin-skinned, contrived Malone (nor do I believe he took the shot).
The Duke Report also covered him and Jill in a several episodes.
Sasha's a dark character. Her responses on Tereza Corraggio's Substack alone shockingly illustrate a very ugly and dangerous personality.
Malone was and is Sasha's primary target. Unless there is a very complex Kabuki setup between those two I am of the opinion that Sasha blew her cover in this regard leaving Malone on the good side, despite the character flaws that we all have to some extent or other in different ways. His book is worth a read for more context.
Someone has been well paid to write a monster smear piece.
In Year 7, it’s quite obvious why this would appear now.
Sasha Latypova has forensically and relentlessly pulled the guts out of this nest of evil deceptions.
A fake pandemic. Lockdowns and other restrictions intended to damage the economy, civil society, families and individuals alike. Also to provide cover for the final blow off of debt, providing the excuse for a financial & currency reset. Meanwhile, a rather inept campaign to inject billions of people with intentionally harmful materials.
Lots of people don’t like that she hasn’t quit & if anything, looks to me to be stronger than ever. The perpetrators don’t like that they’ve misread the threat to their philanthropathic schemes and sent out the trolls.
Hello Mikey, it’s been a long time since I’ve had the pleasure of your visit. The last time was about Jane Ruby, I think - the latest fraud you supported 😌?
1. This work was done pro bono, of course - not everyone is willing to sell their soul for money.
And there is no smear in it, just facts. It's a short biography (which she finds flattering) and a timeline of her own statements and contradictions with very little else needed in the way of editorial. I asked Sasha but she was unable to point me to an inaccurate info.
2. Sasha Latypova does nothing “forensically” - that’s precisely what I pointed out by documenting lie after lie and inaccuracy after inaccuracy. Is it because, like your previous colleagues, you haven’t read the article; or, given that you don’t work seriously either, it went over your head?
3. Is there anyone left who believes your little team of former criminals, pharma shills and failed analysts is serious? I’ve never seen any of you debate with anyone who wasn’t hand-picked to agree with you and ask soft questions. Sasha backed out of the debate she claimed she’d participate in ; perhaps you’d like to replace her?
The only thing failing is the pharmaceutical industry’s plan to sow chaos among safety advocates. We see you, Mikey.
You all are the kooks, sabotaging the truth: there is, in fact, Graphene-Oxide, self-assembling nanotechnology present in the vaccines. Read the handful of peer reviewed studies on the subject—even the CDC has acknowledged that GO is in the vaccine. I won’t provide that here, at this juncture, because I’m tired of fielding the surge of disinformation. But your timing is most circumspect: Latyapova is presently an expert witness in an international court in the Netherlands, where Gates, Bourla, et al., are being tried for their crimes against humanity. Your tripe, and your figure heads agreeing with your tripe, are disinformation culprits, gas-lighting and rendering palatable narratives so far from the truth!
Link that proof that graphene oxyde has been conclusively found in the vaccine (with something resembling a reproducible protocol and a batch number) please.
Or I'll suspend you for 30 days on your next comment, given that I really don't think you're part of the educated public I'm trying to talk to in this article.
“DARPA Hydrogel” is a late attribution describing so-called vaccine ingredients in later studies conducted after the “pandemic”. The origin of this entire conversation is realized in the studies of La Quinta Columna; Scientist Ricardo Diego Martin and Israeli journalist, Ilana Rachel Daniel reported on the presence of Graphene Oxide nanotechnology found in the COVID vaccine, the relevant detriment to human health (the Cytokine storm, a natural bodily immunity reaction, resembles the symptoms of Covid, masking the deleterious effects to human health by the then deployed microwave towers), and addresses the omission of any democratic process through the governmental push of the vaccine; the technology marks an egregious attack in the weaponization of digital surveillance, deployed through the vaccine. Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, intended to speak as an expert witness in the Gates, Bourla, et al. trial, but he died mysteriously before his testimony. Dr. Boyle has described the vaccines as bioweapons. The Children’s Health Defense, under RFK Jr., who founded the non profit, posted the Daniel and Martin video podcast on the platform. It’s since been scrubbed. I’ve documented their content in my early Substacks, and have long suspected the red herrings, like “hydrogels”.
Bloody hell - they’re all propagandists and none are biologists!
But did they find 57 undeclared elements or not?
And are there any other studies into what exactly is in the vials? Or are we trusting the dirtiest industry in the world that what they say is in them is true?
I refrained from posting that information intentionally; your agency will probably have it scrubbed. I have no desire to further communicate with you, so go ahead and block me, and delete my post. I’m well acquainted with the censorship agenda, but I’ll check in from time to time.
I’m incredibly disappointed in this post. First off - there is absolutely nothing here that is incriminating, Sasha has been quite up front about her background which has given her the necessary expertise to challenge PHARMA & DARPA and is why she is so powerfully impactful in the medical freedom movement. Second- doxxing and character assassination is absolutely disgusting and uncivilized in this community. If you have questions for her then debate her. She has made herself completely accessible, which leads me to my 3rd point. Hit piece from anonymous accounts absolutely disgust me. Sasha is an open book - you are hiding in the shadows. Shame on you.
Whether it's incriminating or not is left to the judgment of the audience.
You might be perfectly fine with people pushing fear-porn and dissent, under the guise of an expertise which doesn't exist, and terrible analysis. I already explained and highlighted countless lies and inaccuracies of Sasha above - with every source required to check it - that's all I can do.
Your "open book" didn't disclose that her husband was involved in her operations until a very recent time.
Your "open book" lies on a daily basis as soon as she is challenged - and I offered her to debate countless times *before* to publish this article.
Your "open book" lies to protect her other pharma-shill-bestie, Jane Ruby, who has endangered children with dangerous products prior to walk away untouched.
Your "open book" hasn't authored a single valid and actionable element since she is polluting the scene.
Given that none of this is a problem for you, keep your judgment about anonymous accounts for yourself, Madam Bones. You're yourself a clout-chaser and the information which you broadcast quite often of extremely low sourcing and tone.
And given that I have gifted thousand of hours of my time to the public, and that contrarily to your little gang, my work systematically stands scrutiny, understand that I have absolutely no lesson to take from you.
You utterly, completely discredited for lying and dissembling and hiding like a coward behind an anonymous account. How dare you try to threaten me with doxxing? How disgusting you are. Shame on you.
I won't go down your ridiculous rabbit hole and wast my time debating you - Sasha will publicly. Stop being a coward and face the people you condemn. Otherwise pipe down.
Then sign with your name, if you want to condemn anons.
Did I already mention that I had no form of interest for your moral posturing while it's obvious you haven't even read the article and that you endorse obvious frauds ?
She battles ‘fear porn’ every day. She has been attacked by Malone relentlessly which saddens me as I have met and hosted them both on air and at summits. I have observed for 5 years and what you are accusing Sasha of is a lie
You doxxed her?! Really bad. What’s your name? Would you like to come on my podcast and discuss this with her face to face? Very easy to mud-sling behind an alias. She’s entitled to her opinions, even if you don’t agree with them. She has done nothing to deserve having her private details disclosed publicly.
EDIT : This post being long and substack being buggy lately, you might have to click on "share comment" - then copy the URL in a browser - to read in full that I accepted your offer.
Hello, Mary.
What's with the "anti-anon" trend lately, from people close to Sasha? In 2022 she was aware anons were useful & should be protected. In 2026 she is publishing an article attempting to dox Jikkyleaks, synchronized with "Sense Receptor" for Christmas & the new year. What has changed ?
I'm not sure, reading your comment, if you read the article, or simply went with Sasha's version.
Firstly, the only details I disclosed are those necessary to the comprehension of her persona - I of course left many private details aside, when they had no public interest.
Secondly, I know that Sasha has been pushing the line that I "published her address, vacation home address, her children's addresses and a lot of private information" - given that she told me herself, prior to realize who she was talking to.
Cf. https://x.com/sasha_latypova/status/2011989986024006113
Needless to say this is false - as anyone gifted with a set of eyes can see. As she admitted shortly afterwards - when my article became a "mostly flattering piece", where I only "lied 5 or 6 times in it".
https://x.com/sasha_latypova/status/2011994658956853733
And, needless to say, she was unable to quote a single information incorrect when I offered to correct these - or to point to a non-public (recent) detail disclosed. Cf. here & up.
https://x.com/sasha_latypova/status/2012018663759749407
Thirdly, she is entitled to any opinion she wants as long as these opinions aren't blatant lies which she refuses to correct when it's politely explained to her. Otherwise that's being called a "disinformation agent", not a journalist.
Lastly, I already agreed to debate Sasha (Saturday 8AM Pacific time, 5pm Paris time). I'm perfectly fine with doing it on your platform, provided that I'll stay anonymous for as long as I'm not doxxed myself - like so many of my colleagues have been lately.
The debate's quality would probably benefit from your questions and your moderation - so if Sasha is fine for it, let's change the venue to your platform, at the time which will be most convenient for the both of you - I'll adjust.
anons that run smear campaigns should not be protected. You are a smear op, hired by the military pharma cartel. You attack, smear, run nasty swarms, lie to people constantly and create chaos. That's your job, I get it. Just pointing out, nobody is confused about your "usefulness", and to whom specifically - you have Bourla as the banner on your profile. Thanks for making it clear who you work for and whom you are useful to, useful idiot.
I have Bourla as my banner because his retarded staged "reveal" of the efficacy is completely dismantled by the work that my colleagues & myself have provided.
You know, in that article you acknowledged as entirely correct.
https://www.openvaet.info/p/pfizerbiontech-c4591001-trial-audit
You have a vibrant imagination, Sasha. That's your advantage against me, you absolutely don't need to work to know people. Or to provide a single receipt.
That, or you consider that you can slander anyone, and never care to provide evidence for anything which goes through your mind. It works well with the simple minded, but you're not talking to the right audience, right now, people can see how transparent you are.
The only issue with that tactic is that every of your attempt to insult me ends up amusing me terribly.
backpedal harder. You are clearly associated with Bourla, who is a defendant in the Dutch case, and it's clear our expert team is over the target. Please learn to be less obviously desperate. I never debated your little "data analyses", I stipulate that they are correct, but entirely useless.
You posted a link to her home and also outed her daughter’s online identify. I read the entire article and see zero justification for doing this.
Anyone entering her name in Google can find that information, on the fact that her address is in a *footnote*
Not to mention that Sasha herself communicates gladly on her various properties.
And re her daughter's identity, you probably haven't studied the case much if you think that a 1 million followers teenager who ends up being instrumental in the censorship of YouTube which has been then extended with full force during Covid isn't relevant. Or if you think that two people pushed by Alex Jones within a so short window is purely coincidental.
Meanwhile her (adult) daughter is a public figure and mentioning these facts is directly relevant to people wishing to appraise Sasha’s actions.
Who cares what you think? Are you also a chronic liar and conspiracy theorist?
Please, no such comment here, there are plenty of ways to insult people without falling under the bar of elegance.
Screen: https://i.ibb.co/VcntL3Yr/brave-A8-Xy-Yzxk0-T.png
Well, "anyone with a brain" can judge who is telling the truth & presenting receipts or not.
Could you explain how I'm "doxing" someone who prides herself not to be anon & organizing information which are in the public domain ?
I'm - personally - anon because it allows me to be more efficient by not being personally harassed (as have been so many of my colleagues). Plus I absolutely don't consider that a name is a guarantee of anything - many are using aliases pretending that it's their name (because none checks) ; and many are polluting the scene while being obviously not worried about being sued themselves (like Sasha or Jane Ruby).
Could you explain how you feel entitled to my identity, while I have always constrained myself to provide the proof for everything I publicly say and that I owe you absolutely nothing ?
Mary, there is no doxing in this article, it lays out in clear, with extensive linked references, that Sasha engages in promulgating serious misinterpretations about the contents of vaccine vials, e.g., they contain graphene nanobots, based on poorly misinterpreted dark field microscopy images of cholesterol crystals.
How do I know the cuboid aggregations are cholesterol? It's because I was the first to live stream the opening of sealed (chain of custody vials), with the appropriate lab based analytic hardware, i.e., Raman spectroscopy & SEM/EDX. My access to sealed vaccine vials was also pivotal in allowing Kevin McKernan to prove that sealed, chain of custody vials contained DNA contamination.
Which speaking of DNA, Sasha spews out demonstrably wrong claims about DNA not being real, despite the canon of work which shows repeatable data with respect to biochemistry, and direct measurement of the molecule through Atomic Force Microscopy; which then transfers over into her claim that viruses are not real.
It's these claims that make Sasha an untrustworthy, and likely a Pfizer-subversion provocateur with respect to the science of COVID, and the vaccines. I would suggest reading the article, so you can see the clearly laid out evidence of her kookification strategy, with those that actually try to move the COVID science forward at great risk to themselves.
Thank you Dr. Bowden. Pierre DMed me, he agrees to come on your podcast, please let me know when is convenient for you (I sent you a text). The conditions is he appears on video, you have control of the microphone.
Maybe you might like to hear her in her own words?
https://plebeianresistance.substack.com/p/sasha-latypova-in-her-own-words
Buhahaha 😂
I knew from Sasha's reaction to this article that we had missed a few important things - and while I subscribe to your Substack I had completely missed this incident - an ocean of shame on me (and on those who coded Substack's search) 🤦♂️
Happy to hear that she is as lovely as always ; with the traditional DARVO-from-hell, primal insults and childish deflections 😂
We share some thoughts on "who might be involved behind the account", I see. But given I had no serious substantiation I left that aside. I'll have a deeper look on these angles you raised - and I hope you learnt a few things reading this one too !
Yes I had done similar research but left it out of mine as well. Their original Californian bungalow was a very modest one but what a world of good, for your bank account, raising and selling these no good companies can do.
Wow. How can one person be so wrong over and over and over? And lie over and over and over. And resort to foul language and ad hominems over and over and over. Something is seriously wrong with her!
Thank you for this gigantic dig and effort - I personally find it very valuable and relevant even that many unfortunately are so often unwilling to ponder these aspects and "corners" of the fight. This is essential; and I think it is also so important that as many as possible understand the concept of pre-sabotaged attempts of official accountability as early as possible, before we go further with more.
Thanks a lot to you for reading it and appreciating the effort - thankfully I have a few extraordinary colleagues who made said effort much easier 🙏
And I can't agree more with you re the fact that we need to upgrade a bit our "public counter-intelligence" department.
Sasha blocked me after I repeatedly called out her hyperbolic assertions. I gave her the benefit of the doubt for 2 years since I knew her from my role on a Cardiovascular Advisory Committee at a big pharma company who used iCardiac services. She kept getting deeper in the weeds and conspiracies as time went on. She's smart and apparently wealthy but she has done only harm to the meaningful reform she pursues so rabidly. She's not alone. All her cronies are complete whack jobs too.
That's the point. She takes on "friends" who she targets as marks, and who invariably are credible opponents of the pharma industry. And by doing so she the discredits them by association when she starts with "DNA is not real and the nanobots are exploding". Those that see through her are instead targeted directly with threats to registration or ad hominem and targeted harassment
I think she knows that I am neither very pro or con the pharma industry having spent 37 year in it and actually understanding what and how they conduct their business. Her issue with me was that she didn’t like when I called out her exaggerations and conspiracies. She fancies herself a former “pharma executive” but never really participated in drug development outside of her role as a vendor liaison for business development. Even when called out after saying that 100% of childhood cancers are caused by vaccines, she doubled down on that ridiculous position. Then, she called me names and blocked me after saying that I stalked her.
Yes she is a DARVO queen. Having gone to multiple attempts to doxx me and anybody else she thinks is related, and reposting obviously defamatory graphics from a group of stalkers who went after the family of people they thought were me she then complained when people pointed out who her other glowie family members were.
She is now becoming unhinged. I guess when you do a deal with the devil it can never end in happiness.
Thank you so much for this. I followed literally everyone who spoke against the MSM narrative and against the shots in early 2020 and very quickly dropped all the ones you expose here, and I don't even recall exactly why now except I discerned a bunch of "hooey" in there somewhere. Dr. Malone (and a couple others) though, I have followed from before anyone knew who they even were, and still do. And have gained utmost respect for them (and people like yourself). While the others exposed here have fallen yet further and further into the mire of fake news and views, and totally discredited themselves.
Your paragraph: "But we do not need to diagnose what is in someone’s heart to judge what is on the record."
Reminded me of Matthew 12 and various Proverbs - Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
If the heart is full of ego and clicks for money that's what is going to come out.
Thank you for your comment - it's for the readers like you out there that it was written 🙏
I have a dream to someday create a social media and peer-reviewed publishing platform for the top 1 to 10%, based on the deflationary principle of "90% of people should talk 90% less 90% of the time".
Sounds interesting, ... but also sounds like a platform for only the most ego inflated a-holes, making it seldom used and even less seldom viewed. I could be wrong though.
you just ahve to design so quality behavior is not self-asserted, but dispassionately regulated by the platform and its other users. THe only people who will thrive are quality contributors
So then, a platform reserved for a few bloviating narcissists with an entire team of comment assassins to aid them. Fabulous.
Way more complex than that. Just forget it.
Amazing work. Thank you! What's the name of Sasha's twin sister? Because there is a Larysa Latypova at Aspen Institute in Kyiv, Ukraine.
As I understand it the sister is not a bad person, and so hasn't come up on the radar (and isn't planned to).
Please check my Twitter / X for more details about Larysa Latypova. The Aspen Institute is certainly not only a normal Think Tank at all. Especially not the one in Kyiv, Ukraine; that's for sure.
My sister's name is not Larysa. Try harder dear.
''She used the lowest quality of proof to promote the most extreme conclusions.''
And when i showed Sasha the world's only official covid inquiry to reveal the truth to the lockdown GOLD STANDARD evidence submitted under oath which fully vindicates the sceptic stance from 2020 she replied to me with ''i'm sorry the Scottish COVID inquiry is fake.''
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryfeature
And to follow on with other covid critics without much interest.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newblocked-by-denis-rancourt-and?utm_source=publication-search
The world is a stage comes to mind. Critics are baffled.
Interesting; first time ever with Substack, Bitdefender Free antivirus warns me: "online threat detected" ..
You must be on something - Or maybe antivirus is agreeing with you :D
Entertaining 🤔
I've been "account restricted" on Twatter shortly after posting, and my substack notifications are pretty much gone, but indeed the bitdefender joke is new.
Probably just a coincidence 🙄
It always is :)
In X I am getting: "Your account maybe does not have the privilege to perform these actions" when I try to post (mostly about peace :D) .. but then again; I am in Europe.
I smell desperation.
- and I pay for X! :D (not long anymore though, I bet)
Ah, that would certainly annoy me, at least I get censored & throttled for free 😂
No doubt she works for intelligence, imo. Great article. Next, go look at her mentor for more clues.
Can't seem to locate who that would be.
And YES genetics is a fraud!!
Yes, it is a lie. The logic is simple here. If someone claims that some specific variable exists, then they have to prove it first. And if they claim that some specific variable does something specific, they also have to prove that. Obviously, a proof that a variable exists comes before a proof of what a variable does. If those are not done, then all further claims about such a variable are irrelevant. Thus, in the case of genetics, all talks about DNA, RNA, genomes, genes, genetic sequences, genetic libraries, the process of sequencing of DNA and RNA, and the functions of structures made of nucleotides do not hold water without proof of nucleotides. To date, nucleotides have never been isolated and proven to exist. They are assumed. Thus, genetics is assumed.
https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/the-dna-hoax
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
https://library-of-atlantis.com/2023/07/06/the-dna-delusion/
https://drmarizelle.substack.com/p/genetics-is-not-a-fraud-its-worse
Go exhaust someone else with your nonsensical rants. You'll be unsuspended in a month but you'll have lost interest by then.
You're insane
This was very telling (of Sasha's character)...comments included. Tereza did a good job. She also covered arrogant Robert Malone.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thirdparadigm/p/sashas-daughter-soph?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=b9luw
Agree that Robert Malone exhibits arrogance, it's seems to be a common theme amongst many of the scientists who have turned against pharma. Pretty sure he hasn't tried to doxx any of us or threaten to kill anyone though. Sasha spends an inordinate amount of time trying to discredit him and comes after anyone that dares defend him.
Mathew Crawford, whom I used to subscribe to, knew Malone and had contact with him early on (in all this), had a very interesting experience with him. Not positive. And I've no reason to think MC was lying.
I've never trusted thin-skinned, contrived Malone (nor do I believe he took the shot).
The Duke Report also covered him and Jill in a several episodes.
Sasha's a dark character. Her responses on Tereza Corraggio's Substack alone shockingly illustrate a very ugly and dangerous personality.
Malone was and is Sasha's primary target. Unless there is a very complex Kabuki setup between those two I am of the opinion that Sasha blew her cover in this regard leaving Malone on the good side, despite the character flaws that we all have to some extent or other in different ways. His book is worth a read for more context.
Someone has been well paid to write a monster smear piece.
In Year 7, it’s quite obvious why this would appear now.
Sasha Latypova has forensically and relentlessly pulled the guts out of this nest of evil deceptions.
A fake pandemic. Lockdowns and other restrictions intended to damage the economy, civil society, families and individuals alike. Also to provide cover for the final blow off of debt, providing the excuse for a financial & currency reset. Meanwhile, a rather inept campaign to inject billions of people with intentionally harmful materials.
Lots of people don’t like that she hasn’t quit & if anything, looks to me to be stronger than ever. The perpetrators don’t like that they’ve misread the threat to their philanthropathic schemes and sent out the trolls.
It’s failed already.
Hello Mikey, it’s been a long time since I’ve had the pleasure of your visit. The last time was about Jane Ruby, I think - the latest fraud you supported 😌?
1. This work was done pro bono, of course - not everyone is willing to sell their soul for money.
And there is no smear in it, just facts. It's a short biography (which she finds flattering) and a timeline of her own statements and contradictions with very little else needed in the way of editorial. I asked Sasha but she was unable to point me to an inaccurate info.
https://blog.openvaet.info/p/sasha-latypova-open-to-debate-until
2. Sasha Latypova does nothing “forensically” - that’s precisely what I pointed out by documenting lie after lie and inaccuracy after inaccuracy. Is it because, like your previous colleagues, you haven’t read the article; or, given that you don’t work seriously either, it went over your head?
3. Is there anyone left who believes your little team of former criminals, pharma shills and failed analysts is serious? I’ve never seen any of you debate with anyone who wasn’t hand-picked to agree with you and ask soft questions. Sasha backed out of the debate she claimed she’d participate in ; perhaps you’d like to replace her?
The only thing failing is the pharmaceutical industry’s plan to sow chaos among safety advocates. We see you, Mikey.
By the way - have you read this one?
https://www.arkmedic.info/p/the-pharma-larpers-and-the-syncytin
You all are the kooks, sabotaging the truth: there is, in fact, Graphene-Oxide, self-assembling nanotechnology present in the vaccines. Read the handful of peer reviewed studies on the subject—even the CDC has acknowledged that GO is in the vaccine. I won’t provide that here, at this juncture, because I’m tired of fielding the surge of disinformation. But your timing is most circumspect: Latyapova is presently an expert witness in an international court in the Netherlands, where Gates, Bourla, et al., are being tried for their crimes against humanity. Your tripe, and your figure heads agreeing with your tripe, are disinformation culprits, gas-lighting and rendering palatable narratives so far from the truth!
Link that proof that graphene oxyde has been conclusively found in the vaccine (with something resembling a reproducible protocol and a batch number) please.
Or I'll suspend you for 30 days on your next comment, given that I really don't think you're part of the educated public I'm trying to talk to in this article.
I’m sorry I took that tone. I’ll get back to you with the evidence to support what this truly is, soon.
Not GO, but 57 other undeclared elements and striking findings - not nano tech, but what then?
https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102/291
I would suggest to throw a look to the background of Daniel Broudy:
https://sars2.net/pfizerstew.html#Paper_about_nanotechnology_in_COVID_vaccines_by_Youngmi_Lee_and_Daniel_Broudy
“DARPA Hydrogel” is a late attribution describing so-called vaccine ingredients in later studies conducted after the “pandemic”. The origin of this entire conversation is realized in the studies of La Quinta Columna; Scientist Ricardo Diego Martin and Israeli journalist, Ilana Rachel Daniel reported on the presence of Graphene Oxide nanotechnology found in the COVID vaccine, the relevant detriment to human health (the Cytokine storm, a natural bodily immunity reaction, resembles the symptoms of Covid, masking the deleterious effects to human health by the then deployed microwave towers), and addresses the omission of any democratic process through the governmental push of the vaccine; the technology marks an egregious attack in the weaponization of digital surveillance, deployed through the vaccine. Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act, intended to speak as an expert witness in the Gates, Bourla, et al. trial, but he died mysteriously before his testimony. Dr. Boyle has described the vaccines as bioweapons. The Children’s Health Defense, under RFK Jr., who founded the non profit, posted the Daniel and Martin video podcast on the platform. It’s since been scrubbed. I’ve documented their content in my early Substacks, and have long suspected the red herrings, like “hydrogels”.
Bloody hell - they’re all propagandists and none are biologists!
But did they find 57 undeclared elements or not?
And are there any other studies into what exactly is in the vials? Or are we trusting the dirtiest industry in the world that what they say is in them is true?
I refrained from posting that information intentionally; your agency will probably have it scrubbed. I have no desire to further communicate with you, so go ahead and block me, and delete my post. I’m well acquainted with the censorship agenda, but I’ll check in from time to time.
I’m incredibly disappointed in this post. First off - there is absolutely nothing here that is incriminating, Sasha has been quite up front about her background which has given her the necessary expertise to challenge PHARMA & DARPA and is why she is so powerfully impactful in the medical freedom movement. Second- doxxing and character assassination is absolutely disgusting and uncivilized in this community. If you have questions for her then debate her. She has made herself completely accessible, which leads me to my 3rd point. Hit piece from anonymous accounts absolutely disgust me. Sasha is an open book - you are hiding in the shadows. Shame on you.
Shannon Joy
Whether it's incriminating or not is left to the judgment of the audience.
You might be perfectly fine with people pushing fear-porn and dissent, under the guise of an expertise which doesn't exist, and terrible analysis. I already explained and highlighted countless lies and inaccuracies of Sasha above - with every source required to check it - that's all I can do.
Your "open book" didn't disclose that her husband was involved in her operations until a very recent time.
Your "open book" lies on a daily basis as soon as she is challenged - and I offered her to debate countless times *before* to publish this article.
Your "open book" lies to protect her other pharma-shill-bestie, Jane Ruby, who has endangered children with dangerous products prior to walk away untouched.
https://www.openvaet.info/p/jane-ruby-comments-on-her-latest
Your "open book" hasn't authored a single valid and actionable element since she is polluting the scene.
Given that none of this is a problem for you, keep your judgment about anonymous accounts for yourself, Madam Bones. You're yourself a clout-chaser and the information which you broadcast quite often of extremely low sourcing and tone.
And given that I have gifted thousand of hours of my time to the public, and that contrarily to your little gang, my work systematically stands scrutiny, understand that I have absolutely no lesson to take from you.
You utterly, completely discredited for lying and dissembling and hiding like a coward behind an anonymous account. How dare you try to threaten me with doxxing? How disgusting you are. Shame on you.
Ok, it seems hardly possible to have a rational conversation with you, and you lied already several times - this exercise will end soon.
Show me where Malone attacked her first, as you stated, please.
https://open.substack.com/pub/openvaet/p/the-disastrous-alexandra-sasha-latypova?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=200737636
I won't go down your ridiculous rabbit hole and wast my time debating you - Sasha will publicly. Stop being a coward and face the people you condemn. Otherwise pipe down.
here's where Malone attacked me first, showing you again:https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/dear-dr-malone
Mouse lies 22.0
My full name is Shannon Joy Bones and it isn’t a secret and never has been a secret you vicious person. Shame on you.
Then sign with your name, if you want to condemn anons.
Did I already mention that I had no form of interest for your moral posturing while it's obvious you haven't even read the article and that you endorse obvious frauds ?
Shannon Joy IS my name.
Your opinion is worth nothing. Sasha is a nutter
She battles ‘fear porn’ every day. She has been attacked by Malone relentlessly which saddens me as I have met and hosted them both on air and at summits. I have observed for 5 years and what you are accusing Sasha of is a lie
Can you show me the original attack from Malone toward her ?
Because I already highlighted that she is lying on that, in this article you haven't read.
I published the original attack by Malone, and you are lying about it. mouse lies - check.
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/dear-dr-malone
Can you use the same lie in only in one thread, for readability?
https://open.substack.com/pub/openvaet/p/the-disastrous-alexandra-sasha-latypova?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=200743626