by Crystal Clark, April 14, 2022

On the off chance you’ve found yourself here today without knowing who Dr. Bryan Ardis is, you’re in for an extremely sobering and wild ride. As he tells the story (embedded in a compilation video at the end), Dr. Ardis was prompted to begin investigating snake venom, of all things, in relation to the entire global CV19 phenomenon. To be sure, what he found is both incredible and shocking. You will, no doubt, need to cover and research the material yourself to believe it. Most people do, and in a world filled with mindless repetition of propaganda, ‘trust but verify’ attitudes are most welcome.

In regards to the connection between viruses and snake venom, what follows here are companion insights discussed by myself and James Horak, during a November 29, 2014 radio show with host Mark Snider of Ohio Exopolitics. [The original post with show notes can be found HERE, and is reposted below.]

These are transcribed from a segment in which we discussed the true nature of parasites and viruses—including the fact that before they began to alter modern dictionary definitions, the original definition of “virus” was a toxin or SNAKE VENOM. The detailed nature of that particular segment, indeed the entire interview discussing the relevance of parasitism as a whole upon society, includes data and perspectives that can help readers penetrate more deeply into several related issues simultaneously—including recent revelations from Dr. Ardis, and where that component may fit into the mechanism as a whole.

While the transcription below only covers the segment dealing with viruses, I suspect listeners will find the dialogue just before this, in relation to Ebola, equally interesting. Transcription begins at the 29:05 mark of the audio file below:

Mark Snider, James Horak & Crystal Clark – Parasites – 29 Nov 2014


Q. Mark Snider: So, is a virus considered an organism?

A. James Horak: Hmm-mm, no. It can be in the form of a mixture of proteins that get involved with cellular integrity of the individual it’s in, and affects the way in which sister cells are replicated…

A. Crystal Clark: If it helps Mark, there used to be, before they started revising reality in this direction, there used to be [known] very distinct differences between viruses and things like parasites. Viruses were once considered non-living, biological contaminates because they do not feed for sustenance and they cannot reproduce using their own parts. And in older dictionaries, that were written before these revisions, very strangely it will seem to a lot of people if you look it up, it will say that it’s a form of poison and often snake venom. So that’s the difference between a virus and a parasite, and the changes that were made, to the definition of a parasite, removed the need for physical attachment to the host, and included shelter. So now, any living thing, that needs another living thing for food or shelter, is [now] considered a parasite, which of course leads us back to the parasitic view of humanity—and we know where that’s coming from.

Q. Mark Snider: Well, let me throw this out and you can correct me if i’m wrong, I mean, a virus still has DNA and RNA, right?

A. Horak: It can have, [but] not necessarily. What it has, it can have the building blocks of certain proteins that are going to be taken into the cell, but with a variation that’s going to affect the reproduction or the cell division of the that cell into a sister cell, and that sister cell—which we could ascribe as second generation but theoretically it’s a sister cell—it’s divided from it’s sister, it affects what a lot of people think of as a mutation, but it’s just a variation, and that variation is seldom beneficial.

Q. Mark Snider: I’ve heard viruses described as organisms on the edge of life, and I thought viruses do reproduce, correct?

A. James Horak: No.

A. Crystal Clark: No, they have to be replicated.

A. James Horak: The only way of reproducing is by using a host cell, that they affect in a way that will lead to a variation, in the sister cell.

Q. Mark Snider: So, does the virus, essentially replicate itself by changing the DNA of the cell that it goes into?

A. James Horak: It changes the environment, of the cell. It changes the way in which that cell will put together its own protein, and what the sister cell that it will replicate, what it will be—what its characteristics will be. For instance, like in a cancer. What happens is the environment is changed so that the cells will now have to compete, they’re competing in a lower oxygen environment so that they convert over to anaerobic function to be able to compete better, thereby losing their function for the tissue they’re in, and giving off toxins at a higher rate.

A. Crystal Clark: You know Mark, I just wanted to add that I think it’s very helpful to people, to look at a biological virus as bio-hacking, the same way a technological virus goes in—if it knows the source code—it goes into the computer, it begins to re-write the code and now the program no longer functions the same.

A. James Horak: Pretty much.

A. Crystal Clark: Same principle, they’re just not living entities.

A. James Horak: It’s just like with chemical and radiological mutations—what they create is seldom beneficial—either beneficial to any host or beneficial to their survival.

Q. Mark Snider: I’ve heard viruses described as not living things, that they’re more or less information, I think the analogy I guess Crystal was making, it’s almost like someone putting a bug in a computer program, or you know, messing with the source code.

A. Crystal Clark: You know, there is something really interesting about that, that I asked James the other day, that I think you would find really incredible, although whether in a good way or a bad way is debatable. When you look at things through design, you try to understand their purpose and function. And we can look at things, we can look at microbes and fungi, and we can see their purpose, but not viruses. They don’t seem to have any beneficial purposes in nature, so I asked James the other day, are these maybe leftover Frankenstein experiments from a previous lineage, and I think you might find his answer interesting.

A. Mark Snider: OK

A. James Horak: That’s a possibility, there are other possibilities, but I think that is probably the most significant one. We find in nature, in everything, that when it is in balance, it’s self-healing. And anything, that is on any scale, that is counter-evolutionary, which viruses are, it ends up getting scrapped. But, when mankind meddles, and using Dioxin, finds a way to genetically engineer things that throw nature out of balance, it may take some time, an entire lineage or more for this balance to be restored, and in a partial manifestation it may take much longer…

Q. Mark Snider: You know, these vaccines produce an artificially acquired immunity, and even that can be unhealthy, can’t it?

A. James Horak: Oh yeah, well, here’s a variation. Any kind of immunity is variation, and humans that acquire immunity, that is when things are in balance, when it isn’t a chemical lab that is devising a biological weapon and it gets loose, like may have happened here, when that doesn’t happen, the correction is part of nature. When they’re not made, for instance, I speak of cancer, as being an immune response, and that would indicate what you’re saying exactly, because that’s what it is. If you try to treat it as a disease, and attack it with the very things that cause cancer, like radiation and chemo therapy, you might stress the body to fight back and you get a desired result, one time out of ten thousand, but it’s probably very much like trying to adjust your carburetor with a sub-machine gun.

Q. Mark Snider: [laughs] That’s a good analogy.

Q. Mark Snider: Well, at one time they had a germ theory of disease, and they don’t even think that’s real anymore, do they?

A. James Horak: I’ll tell you what has had a lot to do with changing that, and that is their resistance to acknowledging that on meteorites, and on things they find in deep ice cavities in the Antarctic, they find tissue, even tissue that is alive, and can be brought back to life very easily when it’s not, what we call “living fossils”. So they find these things and they want to cling to ‘life’ and the idea of a concept of life, but they want to hold to mythology too, so they get caught up in their contradictions, because they’re not flexible enough to be able to originate new finds, and correspondingly relate them to the old understandings. Because it would change them—it would challenge openly some principles—and we don’t have a single principle, in science, in agriculture, or any field of endeavor on this planet, that couldn’t stand a little adjusting.

Q. Mark Snider: I think we got the first images of viruses back in 1931 when they developed the electron microscope—is that true James?

A. James Horak: That’s right. Well, it took electron microscopes, something that could see something at an enlargement of a quarter of a million times, to actually see the building blocks of proteins, the virus came into the picture, and they started seeing that there were things going on that they didn’t quite understand, so they began to try to understand sub-molecular particles and other things, and how they were related. And that’s when they began to really get into genetics, and to see there was more to genetics than simply gene alignment on a chromosome.


Remembering that this interview was originally recorded 8 years ago in 2014, several of the patterns and warnings we pointed to have regrettably now come to pass. Perhaps the most striking example, discussed with this host [around the 18 minute mark], is regarding the three phases of behavior and decline that lead to the demise of an entire civilization. In the last two years, the mattoid elite have used CV19 to massively accelerate the third phase:

“In phase 3, what accelerates the process, is you have billions of people that are conned into participating in their own demise out of ignorance, under false pretenses of doing the exact opposite.”

In listening to the entire interview beyond the transcription, new readers especially, will come across concepts they may have no previous reference for. This would include phrases like “previous lineages”, “limited disclosure”, and “partially manifested reality”. These topics are, indeed, strange, but they also fundamentally represent one of our most profound truisms: reality is stranger than fiction. Readers can learn more about those extremely important topics in the resource section below.

Humanity once again stands at a most important fork in the road; a moment exhilarating and exasperating, liberating and terrifying—may we have the wisdom and moral fortitude to choose the path of countless wonders.  —Crystal Clark


The Sacred Science (link)

(Misapplication of knowledge destroyed 6 previous lineages–we are repeating it)

Articles on Reality Revisionism (link):


‘Limited Disclosure’ & ‘Partially Manifested Reality’:

NOTE: James Horak’s reference to ‘limited disclosure’ is a derogatory term meant to convict the elite of consistently lying to the public about the true nature of other peoples in the universe—that they consistently ‘limit’ those ‘disclosures’ to a context that pre-defines those people as hostile, and as anything other than people, when nothing could be further from the truth, in preparation for another great reality revision pulled off under the guise of a [fake] hostile ET invasion.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s