The Yes No Virus Psyop
Is the Virus Debate a Smokescreen for Biological Product Rollouts?
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
|
"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.