Excerpts from Katherine Watt's Freedom Hub presentation (5 June 2025)
I recommend that Americans in particular watch this recent presentation by legal researcher
, accessible on her Substack, Bailiwck News.
I first became aware of Watt in 2023. Based on what I had time to review then (and later, as I continued my own research), I told colleagues and associates who asked that I respected her depth and integrity, and considered her a serious, formidable investigator. My written response to an inquiring individual and several others in an email thread, dated 9 February 2025 follows:
I hold the work of Katherine Watt in high regard for its apparent rigor, seriousness, and intellectual consistency. I regret not being able to spend time evaluating Ms. Watt’s work and conclusions more fully. Doing so would take time away from my own particular focus and require in-depth knowledge of legal terminology and U.S. statutes. She and I have much in common, but I have not interacted with her privately at all.
Watt lives in the vicinity of two school districts I used to consult with in my pre-2020 professional life, and had very good experiences with, which further contributes to my positive perception of Watt’s output. All of my communications with Katherine Watt have been public; we have never exchanged emails or messages.
Our areas of interest have converged more recently, thanks in part to shared questions about viruses and similar views on the existence of false binaries that have dominated and steered debates about the COVID event.
Some of the positions I’ve espoused may seem to be at-odds with those of Katherine Watt; however, probing certain concepts further and/or seeing Watt talk about her own evolutionary and current ways of thinking makes clear that we are singing from a similar songbook, if not singing different stanzas in the same song, in different, largely harmonious keys.
I don’t disagree with anything Watt says in the Freedom Hub presentation and have provided selected excerpts below from the presentation transcript in the hopes it will motivate readers to “go the source” and watch it themselves — regardless of whether they agree.
Excerpts from transcript for “Deceitful, deceiving, repealable US federal laws enabling psychological, chemical, and biological warfare to be camouflaged as communicable disease control, pandemic preparedness and response, and vaccination” (Katherine Watt, Freedom Hub, 5 June 2025)
Real reasons for certain U.S. Laws
“…scientific misconduct hides that biological organisms are processes, not objects. They're dynamic. They're not static. Same with diseases. And so the laws are set up with the idea that there is a single cause there is a single effect which is the disease and you can use a product a vaccine based on that single cause to prevent that single disease. And that is not correct,and they have known that that's not correct. The people who promote this lie or fiction have known that's not correct for a very long time.
What we're told is the reason for the laws — which is that we need these laws to help public leaders in the government and the military and to help society in general, civilians, to identify and prepare for and prevent and respond to infectious disease threats. Again, those are false reasons.
The real reasons for the laws is to project the illusion that there are these specific threat-causing particles floating around that you should be scared of—to promote the illusion that governments and scientists and biomedical researchers should prepare for these things with biodefense programs, with disease surveillance, with diagnostics and tests, with vaccines.
And so that one can kind of be summarized as take vaccines to be safe. And some of the laws, many of them actually combine those two illusions to say, be scared and take vaccines. That's an oversimplification of what they do, but that's how the basic structure works.
Resistance to vaccines as self-defense and instrument of illusion/performative prop
I don't frame not taking vaccines as a medical freedom issue. I frame it as self-defense. And that's mostly because, to the extent the whole project is about projecting an illusion or putting on a theatrical performance, when... anyone speaks about vaccines as medical products and speaks about communicable disease as a real threat from airborne particles they are participating in projecting the illusion.
They become part of the performance team, and so I think it is not wise to do that. It is wise to not participate and to refer to them as just poisons. They have been poisoned since the start of the modern vaccine era, which was in about 1798 with Jenner. The toxic effects have been known for a very long time and very carefully suppressed by the orchestrators. So doctors, nurses, pharmacists, targets may not have known, but the people who put the programs together definitely know and have known for a long time.
Purposes of National Biodefense Strategy and related laws
The National Biodefense Strategy was put in in 2016 and through it, Congress basically told the Secretary of Defense and the HHS Secretary and the Department of Homeland Security Secretary and the Ag Secretary to get together and develop biodefense strategies including descriptions of what they were going to call and do call biological threats biological warfare bioterrorism so that that list that i just went through is a list of laws and programs that congress doeshave the authority to repeal and should repeal they passed it those things so they can repeal it because they're based on false premises And they're not needed for national defense or for public health or for any of the reasons they claim that they're needed.
However, those laws are very much needed for projecting the illusions that they want to project to get people to be scared and to get people to take vaccines. So they probably will not repeal any of these laws. They worked for a really, really long time to put them together and they gain huge benefits from them.
So I don't talk about repeal as much as I used to. By about the middle of 2023, I realized that Congress is in on it. Presidents are in on it. Cabinet secretaries are in on it. Then I realized that judges are in on it.
And then I realized that most of the lawyers are also in on it or supportive of it or too scared to talk about it. So I changed my focus to helping people, regular people who are not in government at all, not participate. To be able to see through the performative farces and understand that there is nothing airborne that they should be afraid of in social contact or ordinary life, and that they shouldn't participate in projecting those illusions by talking about whatever the latest threat is that the government wants you to be scared of.
Immediate solution: Do not participate (civil disobedience)
You shouldn't participate in projecting the illusion that vaccines are somehow medical products because they're not.
You shouldn't take diagnostic tests. You don't need to wear masks. You don't need to distance yourself. You don't need to take any of the products they recommend. And it's a good idea to publicly ignore or challenge or ridicule people who do further the performance.
Virus/No Virus
I was aware from the beginning of the virus versus no virus, no isolated virus has been found argument. And I set it to the side because I was too far. All of my capacity was taken up with figuring out this legal stuff.
And then in June, 2024, I got a little bit of breathing space and was able to start processing some of it more. And had a look at — there's a woman on substack named Conspiracy Sarah who did a summary of Jamie Andrews’ work with The Virology Control Studies Project, and from that basis, I looked at things by another woman by named Tracy Northern who has passed away, and a few other people, because I was trying to unravel for myself, what do they mean? What is meant by the word ’virus; when people use that word? And what is meant by the argument about whether it exists or not?
And the position that I have come to from that, which is open to change if I learn more, goes back to Antoine Béchamp and Louis Pasteur and their conflicts and things in the mid-1800s. And the concept of, or the term microzymes as a organism that is an organism. They're called that because they're organized.
And so Pasteur and other people were saying the cell is the smallest living organism. And Béchamp said there's something even smaller and it's the microzyme. And so. part of what I understand from him and from Jamie Andrews and from other people is that you can say viruses exist if what you mean is some very tiny living organisms that are in dynamic process. That things come off of them like exosomes or proteins. Things are absorbed into them like nutrients. But because they are dynamic, there is no fixed thing like a virus, like a single virus. There is this infinite number of microscopic, sub-microscopic living organisms that are always in relationship to other organisms in time. I'm not, I'm definitely not trying to evade what your question is. It is true, what you're saying. They have never isolated a single virus and said, here it is, a virus. If you think of it—
[Host: I understand the theory because I've already taught at GoldCare Pastor and Bouchant and how Bouchant was right and Pastor was wrong.
KW: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that. I think there is a false binary between the two of them, but I think there's a lot to be said about the relationship between the work that both of them did.
Nanotechnology/Spiritual Connection
Host: What about a more nefarious purpose? Because over the half decade of our two shows weekly, except holidays, we've platformed some really edgy experts and thought leaders. What about hiding God? The more toxins you infect us with, some of these metals will synergize with the wireless deployment that helps with control. Is there anything to the spiritual battle aspect of this, or do you stay with the nuts and bolts of what you just said? Not go there.
KW: I stay with the nuts and bolts. I don't actually think the nanotechnology has a lot of credibility to it. And part of, like, Sasha [Latapova] sort of summarized it as “junk is not technology.” Shoot, there's a third one. “Junk is not technology. Damage is not control.” And I can't remember what her third one was, but because I know that they don't have the scientific techniques to make the vaccine products, even in the way that they say they're talking about them as like microorganisms or inactivated microorganisms specific to a disease that will prevent something, that's all nonsense. I also know that they don't have the technological capacity to do the nanotechnology in like an electronic way.
What they do have is the ability to project the fear and make people behave as if they have done some kind of mind control thing and they do that through words. They don't —Sasha talks about this too — they don't do it through, but yes a sick person is more susceptible to being manipulated, just because they're weak and they're sick and they can poison you. They can cause organ damage —that's the anaphylaxis thing that Sasha talks about, and the induction of turbo cancers. It induces dependency on the government. And I guess I would separate those two. I definitely don't think by taking vaccines, they can block your connection to God. Your connection to God is because you have a soul, because he made you. And that's not something that other human beings can interfere with.
You can interfere with it by your free will, by rejecting God or turning away from God. But it's not that somebody else comes in and makes you not have access to God and that's my view.
David Martin/Scripted Show vs. Demonstrated Reality
Q: And what do you know of David Martin, if you do know about him? And maybe even James could comment.
KW: I know of him. And I'll leave it there. These kinds of documents - because of the research that I've done, I interpret them as stage directions or theatrical scripts and they are capable of making events that follow the script. They are making capable of making events that look like they're following the script even if the level of harm that they inflict is not at the scale that is in the script. So that's how I would interpret that and how I interpret how what happened in 2020. Like people talk about Event 201 and that—and then interpret what actually happened after 2020 as like, oh, it really happened, it really happened.
And I don't look at it that way. I look at it as they had a script and they projected the illusion and they could project the illusion because they had the pieces in place to do it. Things like the PCR test, things like masking orders, things like business shutdown orders.
So to the extent people look at the scripts and say, that's a fictional scenario that they want us to believe because if we believe in it, we will go along and be participants in whatever happens. If you can see it that way and then look at what happens and say, much of this, some of this, all of this is just an illusion. I do not have to be scared. I do not have to cooperate with whatever they're asking us to do. I do not have to accept the invitation to be a participant in the performance. I think those are good things to do.
Headlines for Woodhouse 76 articles that mention or react to Katherine Watt’s ideas are shown in the screenshot below.
I’m an admirer of KW also, just for the record. And of you, too.