What Matters: Truth or Perception?
originally published on my other blog
Henry Kissinger famously said, “It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.” This statement highlights the enormous power of public perception—shaped by leaders, media, and propaganda—in influencing how societies respond, especially during crises.
During COVID, far too many people around the world perceived the virus as an overwhelming threat. This perception was used to justify extraordinary actions: people’s lives were upended, businesses closed, jobs lost, and personal freedoms restricted—all based on the prevailing belief that such measures were necessary to combat a deadly novel virus.
But was this perception truly justified? One of the most important questions we can ask is not only whether there was a novel virus, but whether it was genuinely dangerous. The dominant narrative—still widely promoted and rarely questioned—insists that unprecedented restrictions were not only justified but essential. Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests otherwise.
Evidence That Challenges the Narrative
One of the strongest repositories of such evidence is the independent blog
on Substack. While he shares his work completely free—without seeking fame or financial reward—his message remains largely unheard, partly because algorithms reward Substack writers who monetize their content.Examining testimonies collected in his work reveals an uncomfortable truth: perhaps there was no genuinely dangerous virus, but rather a genuinely dangerous, panicked response.
Testimony: Rhona Arthur
Rhona Arthur’s father, William (Billy) Douglas Allen, age 90, died on May 3, 2020. Her mother, Violet Murray Allen, died shortly after on May 20, 2020, at age 93. COVID was listed as the sole cause of death in both cases.
Yet according to Rhona:
Her mother never showed symptoms, even four weeks after a “positive” test.
“Mom died on the day the picture came out of the drinks party at Downing Street. It is really tortuous to see that picture in the media, again and again.”
“She had just lost heart after Dad died and became quite withdrawn, spending a lot more time in bed. We weren’t sure if it was grief or if it was COVID… she didn’t have any symptoms.”
“Even by the middle of May, she wasn’t showing ANY of the key symptoms.”
(Source: Biology Phenom, Substack)1
Testimony: Adam Stachura
Adam Stachura, Head of Policy and Communications at Age Scotland, testified before the Scottish Covid Inquiry, describing deeply troubling practices in care homes:
“We were hearing from … people who were objectively healthy, but were 50, 60, 70 years old … being asked to agree to this on the spot, at the time of this unsolicited call … A woman in her 50s who was a runner, whose only health condition was hearing loss … There was no logic to this … Whole care homes, every single resident, blanket DNRs … From our discussions with other organisations … we had a sense that this was happening in care homes where all residents were having DNR decisions agreed in a blanket manner.”
(Source: Gary Sidley, Substack)2
Who Is Ignoring This?
Curiously, many figures in the so-called “medical freedom” movement are absent from reporting on these testimonies. On Substack, writers with verified checkmarks often have hundreds or even tens of thousands of paid subscribers. Yet none of these people adequately amplify the work of Biology Phenom, despite his meticulous presentation of evidence.
This creates a paradox: those who claim to challenge mainstream narratives often overlook some of the strongest counter-evidence—that COVID was not a uniquely dangerous virus. While some will argue there was a new pathogen—and others dispute the very existence of viruses—the key issue here is that the evidence does not support the justification for extreme restrictions.
The Importance of Evidence
Why isn’t this crucial evidence discussed and shared daily by prominent “freedom heroes”? If it is truly so important, why is it not at the forefront of their messaging—broadcast loudly and regularly to their audiences? Shouldn’t connecting the dots be their highest priority?
One possible explanation is shadow banning, which makes it risky for influencers to cover. If their reach and revenue depend on visibility, they may avoid controversial evidence to protect their platforms.
But true courage means sharing this evidence to effectively counter mistaken perceptions still commonly held. Sharing this evidence would break down many barriers and protect vulnerable people from future threats of harm, even though it is unpopular, inconvenient, or carries a personal cost.
A Call to Action
It is time for those who claim to be awake to fully wake up. No one is coming to save us; we must speak up ourselves. Do not wait for others to spread this evidence. Share it daily, persistently, like a continuous SOS.
History shows that the biggest changes begin when ordinary people refuse to let vital facts remain buried.
Thanks Renee. A new slogan could be ''Truth'' Enertainment Inc-''helping to bury the actual truth one rabbit hole at a time.'' You can even pay us for the priviledge if you want more 'truths.' It's so depressing almost no one is calling this out.