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.
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?
"The "no virus" group often seems fixated on denying the existence of viruses and even DNA,"
- Here, you might be talking about few noisy chaos agents. Although it's not entirely unreasonable to question many aspects of the nucleic acid DNA/RNA paradigm. chaos agents won't get you very far.
The original no-virus guru is The Perth Group, which focused on HIV, and then Stefan Lanka successfully challenged the existence of the measles virus, and later Mark Bailey published a pretty thorough essay about the fakery of the animal virus paradigm in general.
Mike Stone has a substack called ViroLIEgy, which is also very educational.
You won't find any single source that perfectly satisfies all your curiosity. That's just part & parcel of CovidHoax - there's built-in ambiguity to everything. I'm not sure if the ambiguity has a social engineering role, or if it's just a feature for training The Ai Machine about human behavior.
It's so odd, that people don't want to do homework, but call things psyop, and when reached and out and showed, like, hey you might would like to read stuff on these sources. Then they say "honesty I'm not that curious about it"
Wow! So what makes you call it psyop? Only that side? And not the other side? Yes renee 'even' 'DNA'. I might get blocked, but I have taken a screenshot.
I was just being honest. There are so many things to be curious about—why do you think you should decide what I should be curious about?
I called it a "yes/no psyop" because it is meant to steal my time. Kissinger famously explained, "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true". In other words, propaganda is incredibly important.
The no-virus people insist that we must get everyone to see the truth. Fair enough, but they spend so much time talking about "no virus" that they ignore evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no pandemic in 2020—only murder. Showing people the evidence from 2020 would be far more effective in the immediate future than trying to get them to read hundreds of papers they're not even curious about.
People arent deciding what you should be curious about, people saw you are calling the position they hold a 'potential' psyop, and that is why people reached out to you saying, (humbly) like, hey you might want to check out the material of these sources, that might make you take your words back. No one is forcing no one to read hundreds of papers that they aren't even curious about, thats a very absurd argument from your end tbh. If you wouldn't have called it a potential psyop no will bother reaching out to you. And continue their research, it's your post, 'implying' their position as potential psyop, was the very invitation for people reach out to you. Come on 😅
Let it be... This message of yours just told me what I want to know, you go about calling a position a psyop without doing a work, and when reached out, you say, who are you to decide what i should be curious about? Ohh God. Bless yaa.
My experience is that important conversations often get shut down due to the "no virus" position. For example, if I say there was no pandemic or no dangerous novel virus in 2020, someone who identifies with the "no virus" stance may show no interest in evidence of murders that occurred in 2020. On the other hand, someone who believes in the virus's existence might label me as a 'no virus' person and dismiss any further discussion about the evidence of murder. This kind of polarized response—from both sides—gives me the impression that it could be a psyop.
‘‘they spend so much time talking about "no virus" that they ignore evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no pandemic in 2020—only murder. Showing people the evidence from 2020 would be far more effective in the immediate future than trying to get them to read hundreds of papers they're not even curious about.’’
Nailed that one Renee. No virus people want to run before they can walk and are providing very little if any real substance to claims other than some opinions from ‘fringe experts’ that can be labelled as conspiracy theorists or tin foil hatters. But can the same be said for all this? I think not so that’s where i start. https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryfeature
So after normies started to migrate to youtube around 2010 there was a period of about 5 years where feminists (from professors to bedroom feminists) got absolutely annihilated with facts and logic. The standard feminist concept of 'patriarchy' got deconstructed a million different ways and exposed as utter nonsense (and in fact the opposite of reality).
It was at this point that they shifted the discussion to 'systemic inequality', 'intersectional issues' and they started to make small (psuedo) concessions like 'patriarchy hurts men too' and 'smashing the patriarchy will benefit men as well as women'.
This bought them another 10 - 15 years. Long enough for the next wave of feminism to be brought in (medical sterilisation and the de-gendering of language, culture, public spaces and the legal system).
At no point did anyone actually concede that the fundamental claims of feminism had all been totally annihilated, or more importantly that 100+ years of feminist policies, laws, and other changes to society had all built on the back of lies, and should probably be dismantled.
I fear the same thing will happen (and is happening) with respect to virology.
The false claim that 'viruses' exist has been used to justify 100+ years of social engineering and drug profiteering, as well as mass murder on an industrial scale.
But now that this claim is getting destroyed in a way that even normies can comprehend, our attention is also being shifted away to new areas of emphasis, and the central claim of virology (that 'viruses' exist, as defined) is already being framed as yesterday's debating topic.
Nobody is willing to concede that 'viruses' have been debunked and that a century of 'healthcare' and government/ corporate power grabs which were brought in on the back of 'viruses' also needs to be thrown into the trash, along with all the laws and cultural changes brought in to keep us safe from 'patriarchy'.
In both cases they are relying on the intellectually curious free thinkers getting so bored stating the obvious and getting no engagement, that they will give up and move on to the next topic.
I hope you read the article. I did not suggest the debate should end or is over. I offered that it should not be the only debate or focus, and that other aspects are hidden behind it. IMO, every polarized situation is always going to be exploited by corrupt forces and then used to exploit people. That is what I bring up in the article. Also what Dr. Jay explains. "Yes virus" side gets away with a lot of shenanigans because of the way that "no virus" is operating. There is likely infiltration of "no virus" which allows "yes virus" to do some despicable things. Also, I don't think it is a bad thing that I am allowed to vote and other things that I am allowed to do because of feminism. I was one of the people who left feminism in 2020 when they said I should be allowed to wear spaghetti strap shirt to a school but not allowed to show my face. I think polarization is a method of control. Many people say a bird needs 2 wings to fly, so the whole left right thing is another example.
And the inquiry evidence featuring real families with real stories of which we can ALL associate would BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER with the ONLY logical conclusion thereafter is that accountability MUST happen but by avoiding/relegating this very real evidence (the only official accounting in the WORLD) the perpetrators will get away with it AND get to do it all over again!
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?
More refreshing content Renee. Appreciated!
Thanks BP!
"The "no virus" group often seems fixated on denying the existence of viruses and even DNA,"
- Here, you might be talking about few noisy chaos agents. Although it's not entirely unreasonable to question many aspects of the nucleic acid DNA/RNA paradigm. chaos agents won't get you very far.
The original no-virus guru is The Perth Group, which focused on HIV, and then Stefan Lanka successfully challenged the existence of the measles virus, and later Mark Bailey published a pretty thorough essay about the fakery of the animal virus paradigm in general.
Mike Stone has a substack called ViroLIEgy, which is also very educational.
You won't find any single source that perfectly satisfies all your curiosity. That's just part & parcel of CovidHoax - there's built-in ambiguity to everything. I'm not sure if the ambiguity has a social engineering role, or if it's just a feature for training The Ai Machine about human behavior.
Honestly I'm not that curious about it.
It’s a lot to read. We is trapped in a matrix.
It's so odd, that people don't want to do homework, but call things psyop, and when reached and out and showed, like, hey you might would like to read stuff on these sources. Then they say "honesty I'm not that curious about it"
Wow! So what makes you call it psyop? Only that side? And not the other side? Yes renee 'even' 'DNA'. I might get blocked, but I have taken a screenshot.
I was just being honest. There are so many things to be curious about—why do you think you should decide what I should be curious about?
I called it a "yes/no psyop" because it is meant to steal my time. Kissinger famously explained, "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true". In other words, propaganda is incredibly important.
The no-virus people insist that we must get everyone to see the truth. Fair enough, but they spend so much time talking about "no virus" that they ignore evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no pandemic in 2020—only murder. Showing people the evidence from 2020 would be far more effective in the immediate future than trying to get them to read hundreds of papers they're not even curious about.
People arent deciding what you should be curious about, people saw you are calling the position they hold a 'potential' psyop, and that is why people reached out to you saying, (humbly) like, hey you might want to check out the material of these sources, that might make you take your words back. No one is forcing no one to read hundreds of papers that they aren't even curious about, thats a very absurd argument from your end tbh. If you wouldn't have called it a potential psyop no will bother reaching out to you. And continue their research, it's your post, 'implying' their position as potential psyop, was the very invitation for people reach out to you. Come on 😅
Let it be... This message of yours just told me what I want to know, you go about calling a position a psyop without doing a work, and when reached out, you say, who are you to decide what i should be curious about? Ohh God. Bless yaa.
My experience is that important conversations often get shut down due to the "no virus" position. For example, if I say there was no pandemic or no dangerous novel virus in 2020, someone who identifies with the "no virus" stance may show no interest in evidence of murders that occurred in 2020. On the other hand, someone who believes in the virus's existence might label me as a 'no virus' person and dismiss any further discussion about the evidence of murder. This kind of polarized response—from both sides—gives me the impression that it could be a psyop.
It is definitely a psy-op.
A very, very clever one.
The only question remaining for me is whether people like Jamie Andrews are just plain stupid or part of the psy-op.
I'm opting for the latter, given his ignorance (not ingorant) and highly abusive nature.
‘‘they spend so much time talking about "no virus" that they ignore evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no pandemic in 2020—only murder. Showing people the evidence from 2020 would be far more effective in the immediate future than trying to get them to read hundreds of papers they're not even curious about.’’
Nailed that one Renee. No virus people want to run before they can walk and are providing very little if any real substance to claims other than some opinions from ‘fringe experts’ that can be labelled as conspiracy theorists or tin foil hatters. But can the same be said for all this? I think not so that’s where i start. https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryfeature
So after normies started to migrate to youtube around 2010 there was a period of about 5 years where feminists (from professors to bedroom feminists) got absolutely annihilated with facts and logic. The standard feminist concept of 'patriarchy' got deconstructed a million different ways and exposed as utter nonsense (and in fact the opposite of reality).
It was at this point that they shifted the discussion to 'systemic inequality', 'intersectional issues' and they started to make small (psuedo) concessions like 'patriarchy hurts men too' and 'smashing the patriarchy will benefit men as well as women'.
This bought them another 10 - 15 years. Long enough for the next wave of feminism to be brought in (medical sterilisation and the de-gendering of language, culture, public spaces and the legal system).
At no point did anyone actually concede that the fundamental claims of feminism had all been totally annihilated, or more importantly that 100+ years of feminist policies, laws, and other changes to society had all built on the back of lies, and should probably be dismantled.
I fear the same thing will happen (and is happening) with respect to virology.
The false claim that 'viruses' exist has been used to justify 100+ years of social engineering and drug profiteering, as well as mass murder on an industrial scale.
But now that this claim is getting destroyed in a way that even normies can comprehend, our attention is also being shifted away to new areas of emphasis, and the central claim of virology (that 'viruses' exist, as defined) is already being framed as yesterday's debating topic.
Nobody is willing to concede that 'viruses' have been debunked and that a century of 'healthcare' and government/ corporate power grabs which were brought in on the back of 'viruses' also needs to be thrown into the trash, along with all the laws and cultural changes brought in to keep us safe from 'patriarchy'.
In both cases they are relying on the intellectually curious free thinkers getting so bored stating the obvious and getting no engagement, that they will give up and move on to the next topic.
I hope you read the article. I did not suggest the debate should end or is over. I offered that it should not be the only debate or focus, and that other aspects are hidden behind it. IMO, every polarized situation is always going to be exploited by corrupt forces and then used to exploit people. That is what I bring up in the article. Also what Dr. Jay explains. "Yes virus" side gets away with a lot of shenanigans because of the way that "no virus" is operating. There is likely infiltration of "no virus" which allows "yes virus" to do some despicable things. Also, I don't think it is a bad thing that I am allowed to vote and other things that I am allowed to do because of feminism. I was one of the people who left feminism in 2020 when they said I should be allowed to wear spaghetti strap shirt to a school but not allowed to show my face. I think polarization is a method of control. Many people say a bird needs 2 wings to fly, so the whole left right thing is another example.
''I think polarization is a method of control.''
And the inquiry evidence featuring real families with real stories of which we can ALL associate would BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER with the ONLY logical conclusion thereafter is that accountability MUST happen but by avoiding/relegating this very real evidence (the only official accounting in the WORLD) the perpetrators will get away with it AND get to do it all over again!
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing