“Controlled opposition” refers to a tactic often employed by those in power to manipulate and control public dissent or opposition movements. It involves the creation or support of opposition groups or individuals who appear to challenge the existing order but are actually controlled or influenced by the establishment. The purpose behind controlled opposition is to maintain control over the narrative and prevent genuine opposition from gaining traction or threatening the status quo. In essence, controlled opposition is a strategy to co-opt and manipulate dissent, rather than genuinely addressing or resolving the underlying issues or concerns raised by the opposition.
“We Are Winning!”
How many times has Del Bigtree parroted this lie?
Despite Del Bigtree’s claims of victory, it seems that he is only fooling himself with his self-proclaimed successes.
Del is the winner unfortunately. Del Bigtree is his own biggest fan. There is no audience. What substance is he on? It’s easy to see. Watch carefully and post your comments below.
“We are not anti-vaccine”
It is utterly amazing that people want to argue with the fact that these are character actors playing a part. They claim they are anti-vaccine when they explicitly have said over and over again that they are not. Why don’t people hear them?
There’s a saying, “When people tell you who they are, believe them.”
In this video I ask for you to see read Kevin Tuttle’s Instagram posts and look at his demeanor as well as what he is saying in his videos. Is he a groomer? See for yourself.
It was in the year 2000, where he was being groomed to be another Del Bigtree clone by Del himself. Search my blog archives to see so much more!
In this post we unveil the deception behind the January 6th Insurrection. Denise Marie (aka The Informed Mama) is a government plant along with her fellow syndicate member Del Bigtree and fellow cast of thousands. Del Bigtree’s ultimate goal was to create a revolution for his hatred against the citizens of the USA using his pro-health pro-choice quasi anti-vaccine movement and his blind-faith followers.
Also, please read my blog post from 2022 on this subject.
https://gregwyatt.net/from-the-capitol-to-the-city-council-how-extremism-in-the-u-s-shifted-after-jan-6/
There is a lot of deception in the health freedom movement. How to End the Autism Epidemic was originally written by controlled opposition J.B. Handley and Del Bigtree’s personal friend. It was nothing more than a pro-vaccine manual for big pHarma that recommend vaccines. Many people were so asleep that they didn’t see it! Watch this video to WAKE UP!
Also see my previous post from 2021 below.
The story has it that Andrew Wakefield ran across Tia Severino in West Hollywood California when she was working the circuit trying to gain Fame being an actress and singer. She is a public figure working the grift for the nonprofits and charity puppeteers! The cult runs deep my friends. Dig deep on this woman and you will find out that little is what It seems with this group of misfits actors and actresses?
Written by Daniel Alexander Zeck
March 9, 2023
(Facebook post)
Del Bigtree today. Wow.
To think that the no virus position is synonymous with allowing any of the bad actors to get off scot-free is absurd. What a poor misrepresentation of our position. We are trying to hold the majority of the allopathic system accountable, because much of it is built on the fraudulent pseudoscience of viroLIEgy.
No proof of virus would render any argument regarding the necessity or legitimacy of any of the measures totally ineffective, which would then potentially turn the hospital protocols, the shots, etc. intro an act of genocide rather than “we genuinely wanted to help, but we miscalculated some things and underestimated the harmful effects of the shot.”
Sure, a “gain of function virus” would possibly serve to incriminate *some* of these actors. That is, if we’re assuming the system will legitimately hold any of these people accountable (refer to all of the people who were involved with Ghislaine Maxwell and how she was the only one “held accountable”).
But what does gain of function serve in the long run, Del?
For this, read the excerpts from my recent article, An Open Letter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Del Bigtree: https://aleczeck.substack.com/…/an-open-letter-to…:
“I want you both to think for a moment: within the context of germ hypothesis, which of the two has scarier implications for the future?: lab-made viruses funded by people with perceived nefarious intentions, shrouded in uncertainty and mystery, with greater lethal potential than their natural counterparts, or the one-in-gazillion chance natural virus that jumps from a bat to a pangolin to a human (is the pangolin still part of the story?) that rarely occurs across species? Again, neither of these are true whatsoever— both are completely unproven fantasies that make for great science-fiction movies. I believe “they” (whoever they are) are allowing gain of function to be discussed more frequently in mainstream conversations, and of course amongst the surface level alternative crowds where they’re carried by pseudo-celebrity alternative talking heads, to feint a controlled leak of the (completely false) “truth.” And all of the alternative talking heads and their followers shouted “see! Now the truth is out! The virus was made in a lab. Alas, we’ve solved the mystery of COVID.”
But have we? Or are we just setting ourselves up for this nonsense to continue Ad Infinitum? And this time it’s even worse: it’s being paraded around by the 3-year-censored alternative pundits. And as the mainstream position continues to lose its popularity with the controlled demolition of the death-cult, pharmaceutical backed narrative, the alternative talking heads will rise in popularity, and those who’ve not resolved their consciousness of blindly outsourcing to anyone, regardless of whether they’re alternative or mainstream, will take the future bait hook-line-and-sinker.”
Erin Olszewski’s admission of receiving psychological operations training in Oregon has raised questions about her controversial associations and the use of donation funds in her various non-profit ventures.
In Oregon, Erin Olszewski stated she received psychological operations training at Fort Bragg.
It is the first time she admitted this fact publicly.
She focused on her “undercover nurse” stint in New York.
However, many do not know she worked intimately with Scientology’s DC lobbyist, Greg Mitchell and Lincoln Project’s Jonathan Lockwood.
Between 2018 through 2020, Olszewski created multiple non-profits as documented on this channel and elsewhere. For example, she abandoned Florida Freedom Alliance in 2019 within three months of it forming.
Finally, Kevin Tuttle assisted Erin Olszewski to orchestrate protests and the creation of multiple non-profit companies.
Kevin Tuttle is a “former” Air Force Public Affairs officer, also training at Fort Bragg. He also created a shell non-profit supposedly to help parents of vaccine-injured children.
Where did the collected money go? How’s that for a psyop?
The cultivation of moles and the establishment of influence operations is a disturbing subject, and the case of Heather Simpson exemplifies how her rapid ascent as an influencer is not an anomaly.
The case of Heather Simpson is noteworthy because her quick rise as an influencer is not a statistical outlier.
Force Officer Kevin Tuttle established a pattern of cultivating questionable assets like Lynette Marie Barron for Del Bigtree and vaccine patent holder Doctor Paul Offit.
It is speculated by many that Del Bigtree and Paul Offit provided the financial means for Lynette Marie Barron to travel from state-to-state to solidify her role as a legitimate activist.
Much like Heather Simpson, media organizations provided Barron an opportunity to become a public figure and a voice representing the health freedom movement.
With the assistance of Kevin Tuttle, Barron’s role as an activist would be particularly valuable in this respect, providing her sponsors with insights into operations, funding sources, and high-level decision-making.
Who exactly is Barbara Loe Fisher? Currently, she performs a pivotal role in the administration of the National Vaccine Information Center. However, grasping her backstory necessitates revisiting 1984 and witnessing her navigation through contentious public health landscapes.
Barbara Loe Fisher’s image often belies both her claims about herself and certain public perceptions towards her. Alongside Jeff Schwartz—also notable for his advocacy work—they are responsible for successfully pushing forward the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program in 1986. United under their collective D.T.P (Dissatisfied Parents Together), they championed safer immunizations while emphatically proclaiming their support for vaccine initiatives overall.
The ripple effects of their involvement with Congress were extensive and far-reaching, predicated on an awareness of both their objectives and potential consequences, many might argue these extended beyond those negatively impacted by vaccines. Notably controversial was Schwartz’s claimed personal tragedy—a daughter lost to adverse DPT vaccine reactions.
However, this narrative has not held up against scrutiny; persistent questioning unveiled that Jeff Schwartz did not lose a daughter due to declining health after receiving the DPT vaccine; public records confirmed he has only one child, a son—a fact contrary to his previous assertions around experiencing firsthand the devastation wrought by compromised vaccines.
Why would someone lie about something like this you ask? It is a very easy task when you follow the money.
Jeff Schwartz, renowned for his work in law and politics, was instrumental in drafting the indemnification legislation to safeguard vaccine manufacturers during the 1976 swine flu outbreak under Democratic oversight led by Rogers. Following a period of relative silence, he unexpectedly partnered with prominent advocate Barbara Loe Fisher to concoct further legislation intended to shield vaccine manufacturers from an escalating number of lawsuits connected to polio and DPT vaccines.
His testimony to congress stated this “Despite our own experiences, we are not an anti-vaccine group. Our three major goals are simple. We seek to prevent other children and families from suffering the catastrophes that have befallen us. We are proud to join with a number of medical, nursing, provider, public health, consumer, and other groups in supporting this bill. For this bill would do what no other bill that has been discussed would do.”
If you read a multitude of newspaper excerpts and you will find that Barbara Loe Fisher, author of “A Shot in the Dark”, sourced 90% of her referenced materials from Marge Grant. During congressional hearings and subsequent press releases, Fisher unequivocally stated that her daughter was a victim of an adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine. However, she refrained from being branded as anti-vaccine.
As echoed in earlier statements, Jeff Schwartz held similar positions as Fisher. Both personalities were keen on establishing an exclusive redressal approach for vaccine-related injuries through non-jury courts.
The actions of both Schwartz and Fisher have been criticized for not inherently serving children’s best interests. Despite this criticism, they both continued to advocate at legislative levels on behalf of organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics – evident through their respective testimonies given during congressional hearings.
Both Schwartz and Fisher were instrumental contributors towards developing the Vaccine Injury Table; lobbying tirelessly until its adoption within legislation became a reality – much to their elation upon receiving news surrounding its passing into law.
However, enthusiasm soon soured when intricacies unfurled post-implementation led to unsatisfactory results prompting Ms.Fisher to take issue with governmental bureaucracy supposedly shifting regulations ad hoc – all while ignoring her active participation throughout discussions between Paula Hawkins and Senator Waxman.
Prior to the passing of the legislation, Phil Donahue did a show revolving around the DPT controversy. A guest on his show was Marge Grant, who spearheaded an initiative soliciting personal stories related to the issue at hand. Regrettably, she did not receive these letters, due to intervention by Barbara Loe Fisher and Jeff Schwartz, who obtained them unlawfully; urging Ms. Grant to secure legal representation for their return.
Fisher is alleged to have used sourced documents from this same individual as foundational material for her book ‘A Shot In The Dark’. Their involvement subsequently led towards shaping what many believe now categorize as a contentious creation that has resulted in lingering challenges society faces today.
Post-legislation approval saw Fisher garnering nominations for membership on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices board until 1992. Her research contributions extended overseas where she participated in a decade-long UK study investigating potential long-term impacts of DPT vaccines on brain-injured children (a 10-year study) – systematically assessing possibilities like learning disabilities and other health complications associated with these vaccinations.
The research under discussion is known as the “National Childhood Encephalopathy Study”. Its primary objective was to consider including reissued seizure disorder in the vaccine table, which saw a substantial number of claims made from the federal government’s dedicated vaccine fund.
Barbara Loe Fisher, however, cast her dissenting opinion against this move due to insufficient evidence advocating such action. Consequently, her stance substantially contributed to the exclusion of residual Seizure disorder from revisions on the vaccine injury list causing numerous individuals to lose compensatory avenues for their injuries.
Marge Grant also played a role in this study and detailed her insights about Barbara Loe Fisher in her book titled “A Stolen Life.” By 1992, Fisher had vacated this field and transitioned into leading roles at the National Vaccine Information Center.
To elaborate further on Fisher’s background; she has not publicly spoken about any personal connection or experiences related to these circumstances such as an injured daughter nor revealed that she actively offered contributions towards drafting legislation – which she openly criticizes today. Another significant detail kept out of public knowledge is that Federal funds facilitate running aspects of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Reporting System) database under Fisher’s management.
During the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth trial held at the United States Supreme Court, an Amicus curiae brief was written in favor of Bruesewitz by an anonymous author, which gained prominence for its noteworthy commentary. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was distinctly referred to as an “Adjunct” or subsidiary body resulting from the Act of 1986.
The term “adjunct” is conventionally utilized when a law spawns auxiliary entities and it implies that something is not fundamental but rather complementary to a primary integration. In this context, Barbara Loe Fisher – founder of NVIC – appears to have reaped numerous benefits post-implementation of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 1986. Going by dictionary denotations, being termed as ‘adjunct’ suggests her association with NVIC operates on support accrued from this Act while delivering additional reinforcement.
Moreover, there’s a constant undercurrent suggesting Fisher discreetly manipulates information output whilst toeing the line; only disclosing sufficient data without crossing limits set forth by controlling entities. A question hence arises about her affiliations amidst varied government bodies – are these collaborations furthering her cause positively?
As far as improvements since NVIC’s inception are concerned, tangible changes require scrutiny and any incremental progress should ideally be assessed over time.
Conclusively noting Barbara Loe Fisher’s stance – she openly advocates not against vaccines per se but emphatically voices support towards safer vaccine protocols instead. Why is he dallying with all these different government agencies? What significant changes have been made since the National Vaccine information center went live?
It is imperative to recognize that those claiming to be pro-safe vaccine, rather than anti-vaccine, are indeed controlled opposition. This seemingly benign stance promotes the false notion that progressive steps are being taken. A case in point involves Barbara Loe Fisher, who not only participated in contriving pertinent legislation but also had an active role within ACIP when it controversially eliminated a condition evidently arising from vaccinations.
Subsequently assuming a position at the National Vaccine Center, Fisher now behaves as if she wasn’t personally affected – her daughter isn’t injured due to vaccines. It contradicts earlier claims portrayed vividly across various media platforms pre-legislation about her child’s severe injury caused by vaccination; nowadays such incidents rarely bear mentioning.
By perusing these archived newspaper articles and assessing other corroborative evidence carefully, it becomes increasingly evident that Barbara Loe Fisher is NOT who she say she is.