Is the "no virus" versus "yes virus" debate devised to conceal the rollout of biological products? Was COVID presented as a pandemic but arguably just the common cold and a pretext to advance the Human Genome Project? Was this pretext used to secure consent for human experimentation, furthering the ambitions of those pursuing genetic knowledge? These are questions posed by Dr. Jay from
. In this post, I will present his analysis through short videos clipped from one of his live streams and a written summary.While I think the “Yes, No Virus Psyop” pertains to more than merely obscuring the genetic experiment now fully established, this article will focus on that aspect for the sake of brevity.
Both the "no virus" and "yes virus" camps attract significant attention, maintaining focus on the mere existence of viruses. While I acknowledge that this is an important debate, many critical issues often go unnoticed due to the tunnel vision surrounding the basic existence of viruses. If something needed to be concealed, could this polarized debate be a deliberate strategy to distort attention from fundamental issues?
Neither side directly addresses the production of recombinant DNA or RNA, which necessitates large-scale bacterial cultures for significant quantities. Prominent "yes virus" advocates frequently neglect to mention that this process is crucial for the manufacturing of protein biologics, a major category of pharmaceuticals produced in bacterial vats. This omission appears strategic, as discussing the manufacturing process could reveal inconvenient truths.
The "no virus" group often seems fixated on denying the existence of viruses and even DNA, avoiding discussions about biological manufacturing. This fixation does not need to be their stance; they could still assess the biologics but choose not to. This framing of discussions has ensnared them in a loop, hindering many from challenging the foundational aspects of these technologies and scrutinizing their applications.
Meanwhile, the "yes virus" side escapes skepticism partly because the "no virus" camp dismisses biological processes entirely. “Yes virus” “health freedom” advocates, frequently with pharmaceutical backgrounds, highlight contamination in products supposedly needed for a cold that allegedly emerged in 2020. It seems improbable that anything significant, like a novel virus, was actually discovered; rather, illusory methods were employed to project the facade of something new. It lies beyond this article's scope to investigate further. The "yes virus" perspective would have known from the start that contamination was plausible, considering the established manufacturing methods. By framing contamination as a surprising innovation, they appear disingenuous.
Furthermore, the focus on the spike protein, by “yes virus” advocates—whether from lab leaks or natural mutations—serves as a distraction. Discussing the spike protein in isolation is misleading, as injuries from these transfections—now referred to as mRNA since 2020—may likely stem from other factors, such as lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) or manufacturing contaminants.
Conclusion
The "no virus" versus "yes virus" debate appears orchestrated to divert attention from the critical issue of recombinant DNA and RNA manufacturing in pharmaceutical biologics. By concentrating on viral origins/existence, or contamination as a recent discovery, both the “yes” and “no virus” proponents evade the larger implications of how these products are not new, how they are produced, and their potential risks, including those posed by lipid nanoparticles or manufacturing impurities. It seems probable that the framing of this debate was deliberate. Is it possible to still have the “yes / no virus” debate without ignoring the elephant in the room? These are not new products; they were known as transfections prior to 2020. This technology had never been approved for use in humans before 2020, and at the time when they were approved for use in humans, they were only approved due to illusions of a pandemic. The pandemic is a deception managed to this day, by many corrupt groups and players, including some who claim to advocate for health freedom.
 | A guest post by
|
Not only was everything we were told nonsense, they were out and out lies. The people in power have manged to discredit themselves plus any science that they try to put forth. Back to square one doubt is the true basis of science.
Leslie
I think you’re on to something here.
It tracks that nearly everything we’ve been told is nonsense. Let me run down a few things here:
mRNA vaccines have become "The 3rd Rail" of the freedom movement. Many people question the government response to COVID-19, but conveniently gloss over mRNA vaccines, which were the entire point of the exercise.
Let me preface this by saying, "I know that the vaccines are really gene therapy. We know this because the definition of vaccine was officially changed, by the WHO, to include gene therapies."
The Chinese listed zero COVID deaths for more than a year. Which is probably true. It's most likely that China is looking at COVID deaths like an insurance company. If you die "with" COVID you didn't necessarily die "from" COVID. Say someone died with COVID but dies because of pneumonia, then they didn't die of COVID they died of pneumonia (or secondary infection).
Here, in the US, the CDC lists fatalities for the Flu, as "Flu related illnesses." But that's inaccurate as well, because colds and bacterial infections could cause pneumonia (which is usually how Flu deaths occur).
But we do know with 100% certainty that the CDC numbers are total nonsense, because they literally listed anyone who died with COVID (tested positive within 28 days of death) as a "COVID death." Anyone trying to accurately gauge the situation wouldn't do that. That data would be useless.
The entirely horrific government response to COVID-19 could not have been a mistake, here's why.
1.) The entire therapeutic route was abandoned before there was time to determine if any treatments were working or not. DARPA had data on Ivermectin's effectiveness against multiple types of viral infections, but that was ignored. The data was there the whole time, but you had to know exactly where to look for it. It has been on the NIH website long before COVID.
2.) From my own and other people's anecdotal evidence, the symptoms for COVID didn't make sense. Nearly everyone who tested positive for COVID complained of widely differing symptoms. While different symptoms are possible, they are not probable. Take the Flu for instance. The common symptoms of the Flu are the only reason anyone knows to get tested -- for the Flu. Same with most illnesses. Only COVID had such a wide array of symptoms, often times completely different for people within a household.
3.) The World Heath Organization redefined "herd immunity" to ONLY include people who were vaccinated, not people who had prior infection and recovered. They then changed the definition back later on, when people caught on. The WHO released guidelines on how to operate the PCR tests that were far outside the guidelines, which would lead to false positives. Then immediately after the vaccine rollout, they revised those numbers back to where they originally were. So the "infection rates" would appear lower. There's no scientific reason to demand that tests be operated in a manor that will result in false positives, then changed once you release a vaccine. That would skew your own data.
4.) The dangerous, and untested, mRNA vaccines were the ONLY "acceptable" solution to treat COVID. Vaccines in general are usually years down the road, before release. Why would you push the vaccine route first, and not pursue the therapeutic rout first, or at least at the same time? Similarly, COVID was shown, through CDC data, to be on par with the Flu for infection and survivability (infection fatality ratios). Why would they mandate untested vaccinations for something that's no more dangerous than the Flu, by their own estimation? They don't mandate Flu vaccinations -- and they don't lockdown the country every winter.
5.) When the mRNA vaccines started producing bad outcomes, whether it be terrible side effects, general efficacy, or failure to stop the spread, they were sill pushed -- even harder. Meaning that mass vaccination was the true goal, not stopping the spread of some illness that was ravaging the planet. They wanted to get as many people as possible to take the mRNA vaccines regardless of possible injury, ineffectiveness, or inability to stop the spread.
6.) There was a massive government directed plan to suppress/censor any information related to the vaccines. Information that has been proven factual -- because it came from Pfizer's own trial data was considered "disinformation?" People were blocked and censored on multiple video streaming services, and multiple social media services. "The Twitter Files" prove this. Why block the manufacturer's own trial data? Informed consent...?
7.) The G20 countries agreed to a "health/vaccine passport system" to limit, and track, the movement of people world-wide. Why would they do that when it's become clear that the vaccines didn't achieve their stated goals? Now that they are considering COVID as a seasonal illness, there's no need for a passport system. Passports make no sense for a seasonal illness -- unless it was part of a plan all along. Similarly, how would vaccine passports help to stop a seasonal illness from spreading year to year?
If one were to run a PSYOP to try and trick the world into going along with a drastic reduction of freedoms, how much different might it play out?