More covid

eaglesdare said:
The care homes were among the hardest hit:

www.bbc.com

Coronavirus: Worst affected care homes revealed by watchdog

Figures from Care Quality Commission lay out the pandemic's 'devastating impact' on care homes in England.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

My biggest gripe with the whole COVID thing was the mandatory vaccines and masks. Which we were told "if you get the vaccine you won't catch COVID" which turned out to be misinformation.
And the masks which didint work either 🙄
Click to expand...

I said it was a scam at the start and was attacked for it even when I asked people to front up evidence which I ripped apart.

They did not say you can not catch covid if vaccinated that s not how vaccines work.
 
Mattconrov said:
Its bollox if you don't look at the evidence; but I have looked at the evidence.

I'm very sorry about about your dad mate. But I'm dealing with the truth of the matter.

The world was conned and put under mass mind control to accept it.

The people that never got to say goodbye to their loved ones because of the restrictions and died alone in hospital.
Old people murdered with midazalam in care homes. We owe it to their memory to see the truth.

You say you have long covid. Have you had the covid jab and boosters by any chance?

Edit.

Average age of people dying of with "covid"was 84 I believe.

Every "covid death was recorded as a covid death, if the person died with 28 days of a positive test with the laughable pcr test.

So you could have been hit by a bus and died of internal hemorrhaging, but it was still a covid death.

So the actual amount of people dying from a virus alone was dramatically reduced.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"
Click to expand...

I’m not denying for one second that some of the statistics were questionable. Equally, though, the attitude of “I’m right and I don’t care who I offend” is, in itself, pretty offensive.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn’t be presented as established fact. The same body of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. You’ve done your research and reached one conclusion. I’ve done mine and reached another. My research included standing in a hospital at two o’clock in the morning, watching my father die from Covid.

I’m not denying for one second that the lockdowns caused significant harm, economically, socially and medically. But equally, nobody can say with certainty what would have happened had there been no lockdowns at all. That’s an unknowable counterfactual.

I also struggle with the idea that governments around the world, particularly Boris Johnson’s government, wanted to shut society down. Boris Johnson was instinctively in favour of personal freedom and keeping the economy open. Lockdowns were politically and economically catastrophic for the Government did. Whatever mistakes were made, I don’t believe they were something governments were eager to impose.

Do I think there was profiteering during Covid? Yes. Do I think some of the statistics and the way deaths were recorded, particularly deaths “with” Covid rather than necessarily “from” Covid, deserve scrutiny? Absolutely. But none of that changes the fundamental point.

Covid was real. It killed millions of people worldwide, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and changed countless lives. We can argue about whether every restriction was justified, whether every statistic was recorded perfectly, and whether governments always made the right decisions. Those are legitimate debates. But denying the reality of Covid itself is not a conclusion I can reach, because I’ve seen the consequences with my own eyes.

How do you reconcile your position with events like the Black Death, the Great Plague of London, the cholera pandemics, Spanish flu, Asian flu, SARS, Ebola and Covid?

Covid wasn’t an unprecedented disease. It was the latest in a long line of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics that have affected humanity throughout history. Each had different characteristics, different mortality rates and different responses, but the idea that a contagious disease could spread widely through populations and cause significant loss of life is hardly a new phenomenon.

The major difference with Covid is that the modern world is genuinely global. International travel, global supply chains and instant communication mean countries don’t make decisions in isolation anymore. Governments inevitably have to consider what their neighbours and trading partners are doing, because the consequences don’t stop at national borders. Historically, outbreaks were often far more geographically contained or spread much more slowly.

Today, diseases, people, goods and information can move across the world in a matter of hours, and that inevitably shapes both the spread of a virus and the political response to it.
 
grumpymort said:
I said it was a scam at the start and was attacked for it even when I asked people to front up evidence which I ripped apart.

They did not say you can not catch covid if vaccinated that s not how vaccines work.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure sleepy Joe said it.

But you are right in that's not how vaccines work and those of use who called it out at the time were labeled "conspiracy theorists"

apnews.com

AP FACT CHECK: Biden goes too far in assurances on vaccines

President Joe Biden is offering what sounds like an absolute guarantee: If you're vaccinated, you won't get COVID-19. You won't end up in the hospital or die from it.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Nutmegyeti said:
I’m not denying for one second that some of the statistics were questionable. Equally, though, the attitude of “I’m right and I don’t care who I offend” is, in itself, pretty offensive.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn’t be presented as established fact. The same body of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. You’ve done your research and reached one conclusion. I’ve done mine and reached another. My research included standing in a hospital at two o’clock in the morning, watching my father die from Covid.

I’m not denying for one second that the lockdowns caused significant harm, economically, socially and medically. But equally, nobody can say with certainty what would have happened had there been no lockdowns at all. That’s an unknowable counterfactual.

I also struggle with the idea that governments around the world, particularly Boris Johnson’s government, wanted to shut society down. Boris Johnson was instinctively in favour of personal freedom and keeping the economy open. Lockdowns were politically and economically catastrophic for the Government did. Whatever mistakes were made, I don’t believe they were something governments were eager to impose.

Do I think there was profiteering during Covid? Yes. Do I think some of the statistics and the way deaths were recorded, particularly deaths “with” Covid rather than necessarily “from” Covid, deserve scrutiny? Absolutely. But none of that changes the fundamental point.

Covid was real. It killed millions of people worldwide, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and changed countless lives. We can argue about whether every restriction was justified, whether every statistic was recorded perfectly, and whether governments always made the right decisions. Those are legitimate debates. But denying the reality of Covid itself is not a conclusion I can reach, because I’ve seen the consequences with my own eyes.

How do you reconcile your position with events like the Black Death, the Great Plague of London, the cholera pandemics, Spanish flu, Asian flu, SARS, Ebola and Covid?

Covid wasn’t an unprecedented disease. It was the latest in a long line of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics that have affected humanity throughout history. Each had different characteristics, different mortality rates and different responses, but the idea that a contagious disease could spread widely through populations and cause significant loss of life is hardly a new phenomenon.

The major difference with Covid is that the modern world is genuinely global. International travel, global supply chains and instant communication mean countries don’t make decisions in isolation anymore. Governments inevitably have to consider what their neighbours and trading partners are doing, because the consequences don’t stop at national borders. Historically, outbreaks were often far more geographically contained or spread much more slowly.

Today, diseases, people, goods and information can move across the world in a matter of hours, and that inevitably shapes both the spread of a virus and the political response to it.
Click to expand...
Could have easily shut the borders from certain areas but money overrode that. Then to ironically cost 100s of billions more anyway. Even the news reported on Chinese business delegations that didn't seem to perturb anyone. Funny how rabies can be avoided but God forbid we stop a business man from China.
Probably a moot point as it seems there is no border most of the time for most people.
 
Nutmegyeti said:
I’m not denying for one second that some of the statistics were questionable. Equally, though, the attitude of “I’m right and I don’t care who I offend” is, in itself, pretty offensive.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn’t be presented as established fact. The same body of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. You’ve done your research and reached one conclusion. I’ve done mine and reached another. My research included standing in a hospital at two o’clock in the morning, watching my father die from Covid.

I’m not denying for one second that the lockdowns caused significant harm, economically, socially and medically. But equally, nobody can say with certainty what would have happened had there been no lockdowns at all. That’s an unknowable counterfactual.

I also struggle with the idea that governments around the world, particularly Boris Johnson’s government, wanted to shut society down. Boris Johnson was instinctively in favour of personal freedom and keeping the economy open. Lockdowns were politically and economically catastrophic for the Government did. Whatever mistakes were made, I don’t believe they were something governments were eager to impose.

Do I think there was profiteering during Covid? Yes. Do I think some of the statistics and the way deaths were recorded, particularly deaths “with” Covid rather than necessarily “from” Covid, deserve scrutiny? Absolutely. But none of that changes the fundamental point.

Covid was real. It killed millions of people worldwide, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and changed countless lives. We can argue about whether every restriction was justified, whether every statistic was recorded perfectly, and whether governments always made the right decisions. Those are legitimate debates. But denying the reality of Covid itself is not a conclusion I can reach, because I’ve seen the consequences with my own eyes.

How do you reconcile your position with events like the Black Death, the Great Plague of London, the cholera pandemics, Spanish flu, Asian flu, SARS, Ebola and Covid?

Covid wasn’t an unprecedented disease. It was the latest in a long line of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics that have affected humanity throughout history. Each had different characteristics, different mortality rates and different responses, but the idea that a contagious disease could spread widely through populations and cause significant loss of life is hardly a new phenomenon.

The major difference with Covid is that the modern world is genuinely global. International travel, global supply chains and instant communication mean countries don’t make decisions in isolation anymore. Governments inevitably have to consider what their neighbours and trading partners are doing, because the consequences don’t stop at national borders. Historically, outbreaks were often far more geographically contained or spread much more slowly.

Today, diseases, people, goods and information can move across the world in a matter of hours, and that inevitably shapes both the spread of a virus and the political response to it.
Click to expand...

I liked your post because I think it contains many reasonable points.

I'm definitely on the side of much needs to be investigated over Covid.....On most areas....because I think much of what went on was very wrong. From where it came from, to what we were told about it, to the long term effects of those vaccines and the statistics they are producing.

However, I don't fall into the camp of thinking that Covid wasn't real, it most definitely was and it killed off a percent of the elderly and a tiny percent of others and that's a genuine tragedy for everyone affected.

What is so frustrating is that it's been memory holed and if you look into the media now it's as though it never happened.

Yet 300 billion was spent, (though not in Sweden) some of which we are economically going to suffer for and a part from that questions around many of the decisions made during Covid need looking at.

I would say I agree with you about Johnson's default position on freedom.....but I believe he was weak and capitulated to the pressure......because ultimately everyone in power covered their arse.

There isn't a willingness to look.....in my view that's because they don't want to because of what they would find.
 
Nutmegyeti said:
I also struggle with the idea that governments around the world, particularly Boris Johnson’s government, wanted to shut society down. Boris Johnson was instinctively in favour of personal freedom and keeping the economy open. Lockdowns were politically and economically catastrophic for the Government did. Whatever mistakes were made, I don’t believe they were something governments were eager to impose.
Click to expand...

With respect, it didn't matter in the slightest what Boris believed in, or not.

His job was to do what he was told, and read from the script, which he just about managed.

Does this sound a bit conspiratorial, a bit far-fetched? Well it's literally staring you in the face. For some unfathomable reason, some of you still can't (or refuse to) see it.

Build Back Better
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
I liked your post because I think it contains many reasonable points.

I'm definitely on the side of much needs to be investigated over Covid.....On most areas....because I think much of what went on was very wrong. From where it came from, to what we were told about it, to the long term effects of those vaccines and the statistics they are producing.

However, I don't fall into the camp of thinking that Covid wasn't real, it most definitely was and it killed off a percent of the elderly and a tiny percent of others and that's a genuine tragedy for everyone affected.

What is so frustrating is that it's been memory holed and if you look into the media now it's as though it never happened.

Yet 300 billion was spent, (though not in Sweden) some of which we are economically going to suffer for and a part from that questions around many of the decisions made during Covid need looking at.

I would say I agree with you about Johnson's default position on freedom.....but I believe he was weak and capitulated to the pressure......because ultimately everyone in power covered their arse.

There isn't a willingness to look.....in my view that's because they don't want to because of what they would find.
Click to expand...
I'd love to believe that covid was a novel disease. Unfortunately no one has provided me with any evidence that it was.

Like I've said. Step back, look at the facts, look at the reactions to it.

The truth lies in the Pcr test. Without that it couldn't have happened.

Old ground -

The pcr test was an Amplification tool for minute fragments of Dna and other particles in the body.

As its inventor Kacy Mullis stated - its not a
Tool for testing infections diseases.

The pcr test only needed to find a fragment of computer coded "covid virus".

It's been likened to finding a horses tail and saying you've found the horse.

The pcr had a cycle amplification part to it.

The higher the amplification the higher the probability that covid would be found.

Even falcui admitted that the cycle was providing too many false positives. This is why so many people were testing positive but felt healthy.

Because of this over testing, many important health people were sent home from hospitals.

The fake count of people testing positive with covid as against those that were ill, was tremendous.

Topped with all of that there was no isolation of the virus. So it couldn't have possibly existed.

I'm sorry if my views offend people as to their black and white nature; but I'd be lying otherwise.
 
Mattconrov said:
I'd love to believe that covid was a novel disease. Unfortunately no one has provided me with any evidence that it was.

Like I've said. Step back, look at the facts, look at the reactions to it.

The truth lies in the Pcr test. Without that it couldn't have happened.

Old ground -

The pcr test was an Amplification tool for minute fragments of Dna and other particles in the body.

As its inventor Kacy Mullis stated - its not a
Tool for testing infections diseases.

The pcr test only needed to find a fragment of computer coded "covid virus".

It's been likened to finding a horses tail and saying you've found the horse.

The pcr had a cycle amplification part to it.

The higher the amplification the higher the probability that covid would be found.

Even falcui admitted that the cycle was providing too many false positives. This is why so many people were testing positive but felt healthy.

Because of this over testing, many important health people were sent home from hospitals.

The fake count of people testing positive with covid as against those that were ill, was tremendous.

Topped with all of that there was no isolation of the virus. So it couldn't have possibly existed.

I'm sorry if my views offend people as to their black and white nature; but I'd be lying otherwise.
Click to expand...

The inventor of the pcr test, Kacy Mullis, was later dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Couldn't make it up, as the saying goes.
 
Nutmegyeti said:
I’m not denying for one second that some of the statistics were questionable. Equally, though, the attitude of “I’m right and I don’t care who I offend” is, in itself, pretty offensive.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn’t be presented as established fact. The same body of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. You’ve done your research and reached one conclusion. I’ve done mine and reached another. My research included standing in a hospital at two o’clock in the morning, watching my father die from Covid.

I’m not denying for one second that the lockdowns caused significant harm, economically, socially and medically. But equally, nobody can say with certainty what would have happened had there been no lockdowns at all. That’s an unknowable counterfactual.

I also struggle with the idea that governments around the world, particularly Boris Johnson’s government, wanted to shut society down. Boris Johnson was instinctively in favour of personal freedom and keeping the economy open. Lockdowns were politically and economically catastrophic for the Government did. Whatever mistakes were made, I don’t believe they were something governments were eager to impose.

Do I think there was profiteering during Covid? Yes. Do I think some of the statistics and the way deaths were recorded, particularly deaths “with” Covid rather than necessarily “from” Covid, deserve scrutiny? Absolutely. But none of that changes the fundamental point.

Covid was real. It killed millions of people worldwide, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and changed countless lives. We can argue about whether every restriction was justified, whether every statistic was recorded perfectly, and whether governments always made the right decisions. Those are legitimate debates. But denying the reality of Covid itself is not a conclusion I can reach, because I’ve seen the consequences with my own eyes.

How do you reconcile your position with events like the Black Death, the Great Plague of London, the cholera pandemics, Spanish flu, Asian flu, SARS, Ebola and Covid?

Covid wasn’t an unprecedented disease. It was the latest in a long line of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics that have affected humanity throughout history. Each had different characteristics, different mortality rates and different responses, but the idea that a contagious disease could spread widely through populations and cause significant loss of life is hardly a new phenomenon.

The major difference with Covid is that the modern world is genuinely global. International travel, global supply chains and instant communication mean countries don’t make decisions in isolation anymore. Governments inevitably have to consider what their neighbours and trading partners are doing, because the consequences don’t stop at national borders. Historically, outbreaks were often far more geographically contained or spread much more slowly.

Today, diseases, people, goods and information can move across the world in a matter of hours, and that inevitably shapes both the spread of a virus and the political response to it.
Click to expand...
Excellent post mate . Only those that had it or were affected by it with the deaths of loved ones can really know what it was all about . It was a fing horrible virus .
Nobody is saying the lockdowns the restrictions they put on us or the vaccines were the way to go . I rejected the vaccines myself even after a bad time of the covid (twice) but its not really an argument that covid was with us and in a way Its a relief that people got through it without catching it that has left them in a position to question it . Good luck to them .
 
Nutmegyeti said:
I’m not denying for one second that some of the statistics were questionable. Equally, though, the attitude of “I’m right and I don’t care who I offend” is, in itself, pretty offensive.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn’t be presented as established fact. The same body of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. You’ve done your research and reached one conclusion. I’ve done mine and reached another. My research included standing in a hospital at two o’clock in the morning, watching my father die from Covid.

I’m not denying for one second that the lockdowns caused significant harm, economically, socially and medically. But equally, nobody can say with certainty what would have happened had there been no lockdowns at all. That’s an unknowable counterfactual.

I also struggle with the idea that governments around the world, particularly Boris Johnson’s government, wanted to shut society down. Boris Johnson was instinctively in favour of personal freedom and keeping the economy open. Lockdowns were politically and economically catastrophic for the Government did. Whatever mistakes were made, I don’t believe they were something governments were eager to impose.

Do I think there was profiteering during Covid? Yes. Do I think some of the statistics and the way deaths were recorded, particularly deaths “with” Covid rather than necessarily “from” Covid, deserve scrutiny? Absolutely. But none of that changes the fundamental point.

Covid was real. It killed millions of people worldwide, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and changed countless lives. We can argue about whether every restriction was justified, whether every statistic was recorded perfectly, and whether governments always made the right decisions. Those are legitimate debates. But denying the reality of Covid itself is not a conclusion I can reach, because I’ve seen the consequences with my own eyes.

How do you reconcile your position with events like the Black Death, the Great Plague of London, the cholera pandemics, Spanish flu, Asian flu, SARS, Ebola and Covid?

Covid wasn’t an unprecedented disease. It was the latest in a long line of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics that have affected humanity throughout history. Each had different characteristics, different mortality rates and different responses, but the idea that a contagious disease could spread widely through populations and cause significant loss of life is hardly a new phenomenon.

The major difference with Covid is that the modern world is genuinely global. International travel, global supply chains and instant communication mean countries don’t make decisions in isolation anymore. Governments inevitably have to consider what their neighbours and trading partners are doing, because the consequences don’t stop at national borders. Historically, outbreaks were often far more geographically contained or spread much more slowly.

Today, diseases, people, goods and information can move across the world in a matter of hours, and that inevitably shapes both the spread of a virus and the political response to it.
Click to expand...
I've deleted a post to you that was maybe a little harsh because I'm trying to be sensitive to your situation .

But I will say this. You are quite right that we all have our opinions and we do our own research etc. However during this covid episode, people of my persuasion were not allowed to have our opinions expressed. Certainly not anywhere so the masses could hear them and make an influence.
 
Last edited:
Dogburger said:
Excellent post mate . Only those that had it or were affected by it with the deaths of loved ones can really know what it was all about . It was a fing horrible virus .
Nobody is saying the lockdowns the restrictions they put on us or the vaccines were the way to go . I rejected the vaccines myself even after a bad time of the covid (twice) but its not really an argument that covid was with us and in a way Its a relief that people got through it without catching it that has left them in a position to question it . Good luck to them .
Click to expand...
So emotion trumps facts about governments making things up. Got it.

People who had spent years battling cancer and other diseases were labelled as having died from covid. They were labelled as having died from covid to further a particular agenda. I'll humour the idea that covid was a new disease for a minute. If it was then it was no worse than the flu that disappeared. The people that died had underlying conditions and died with "covid" not solely because of it.

The government even put something out to that effect in March 2020 that it wasn’t that serious. About the only time they told the truth.

We seem to agree on many things except that covid was not a new disease. However without the belief that it was a new disease and like the flu, then there is new pandemic
 
Last edited:
Mattconrov said:
I'd love to believe that covid was a novel disease. Unfortunately no one has provided me with any evidence that it was.

Like I've said. Step back, look at the facts, look at the reactions to it.

The truth lies in the Pcr test. Without that it couldn't have happened.

Old ground -

The pcr test was an Amplification tool for minute fragments of Dna and other particles in the body.

As its inventor Kacy Mullis stated - its not a
Tool for testing infections diseases.

The pcr test only needed to find a fragment of computer coded "covid virus".

It's been likened to finding a horses tail and saying you've found the horse.

The pcr had a cycle amplification part to it.

The higher the amplification the higher the probability that covid would be found.

Even falcui admitted that the cycle was providing too many false positives. This is why so many people were testing positive but felt healthy.

Because of this over testing, many important health people were sent home from hospitals.

The fake count of people testing positive with covid as against those that were ill, was tremendous.

Topped with all of that there was no isolation of the virus. So it couldn't have possibly existed.

I'm sorry if my views offend people as to their black and white nature; but I'd be lying otherwise.
Click to expand...

So is your position that Covid wasn't something that escaped from the lab in Wuhan?

What was it in your view?....sorry if you have said before.
 
Mattconrov said:
So emotion trumps facts about governments making things up. Got it.

People who had spent years battling cancer and other diseases were labelled as having died from covid. They were labelled as having died from covid to further a particular agenda. I'll humour the idea that covid was a new disease for a minute. If it was then it was no worse than the flu that disappeared. The people that died had underlying conditions and died with "covid" not solely because of it.

The government even put something out to that effect in March 2020 that it wasn’t that serious. About the only time they told the truth.

We seem to agree on many things except that covid was not a new disease. However without the belief that it was a new disease and like the flu, then there is new pandemic
Click to expand...

The problem is that your position comes across as very black and white, with very little room for nuance.

Earlier, I pointed out that I’d had Covid and suffered long-term effects from it. You replied by saying, “I bet you’ve had the vaccine.” Yes, I did. But I first caught Covid in January 2021, before I was vaccinated. My first vaccine wasn’t until May 2021. I wasn’t eligible for an early vaccine because I wasn’t considered vulnerable. Up until then I’d been relatively healthy, with no asthma or underlying conditions, yet Covid still had a significant and lasting impact on me.

I also mentioned that Covid wasn’t the first pandemic in history. We’ve had the Black Death, the Great Plague of London, cholera, Spanish flu, Asian flu, SARS, Ebola and many others. The difference with Covid was that it happened in a genuinely globalised world. Governments weren’t just reacting to the virus, they were reacting to what every other government was doing as well. If one country stayed completely open while everyone else shut down, that created its own set of problems.

Do I believe everything governments tell us? No. Do I think governments are capable of corruption and poor decision-making? Absolutely. My father was a police officer in the 1970s, and he told me enough over the years to make me question authority rather than blindly trust it.

But the reality is that, at the start, nobody truly knew what they were dealing with. Decisions had to be made with incomplete information, and some of those decisions were right while others were wrong.

You’ve also got to account for human behaviour. Some people refused any restriction on their liberties, regardless of the consequences. Others believed we should have locked down to the absolute nth degree. I don’t think either extreme was the right answer.

You’ve done your research and reached your conclusions. I’ve reached mine from a combination of research and lived experience. I walked through a Covid ward and saw a 26-year-old woman fighting for her life. I saw what that disease was doing to real people, and not all vulnerable. I’ve also spent years seeing the economic damage it caused through my work.

You’re entitled to your opinion, and I doubt either of us is going to change the other’s mind. That’s absolutely fine.

What I object to is dismissing other people’s experiences because they don’t fit your narrative. This isn’t a competition over who’s “right”. It’s a complicated subject, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions from the same evidence.

It doesn’t have to be a black-and-white argument. Sometimes the truth sits somewhere in the many shades of grey between the two.
 
Stirlingsays said:
So is your position that Covid wasn't something that escaped from the lab in Wuhan?

What was it in your view?....sorry if you have said before.
Click to expand...

I have a few times , it doesn't matter because I like you Lol.

My opinion as a "covid denier" comes about because I have seen no evidence that covid 19 was a new disease for which we had to take unprecedented actions against.

To explain the whole geo political reasons for the cult/wef to make up something like this is not worth explaining. Particularly because I believe you would probably know already and have even discussed it before. I've been speaking with you since 2021 about covid.

So I will stick to the science as I know it.

Several people in wuhan who were said to be suffering from a new disease (how they knew this as it's practically the same as the flu I dunno) had the fluid drained from their lungs.

From the fluid they said that each of the patients had a similar virus. Trouble is how did they know this. There are two ways of finding out if we have a new disease. The strongest one is the Koch postulates.

The virus must first be isolated. Its also debatable whether these are actual viruses or actual immune system agents; i cant remember name at the moment.
.It's a bit like blaming the fireman at the scene of a fire, if that makes sense.

once we have found the virus it must then be implanted in a healthy specimen.

If enough people become ill, then it reaches the requirements of the Koch postulates. There are 4 of them, so I forgot one.

The above was certainly not done.

Then we had a pcr test which is an Amplification tool for small fragments of particles in the body , dna I believe in particular.

This pcr tool was not a process for finding infectious diseases. The inventor Kacy Mullis said so himself. He conveniently died in September 2019.

So far we have a "virus that has not been isolated, I'm not sure if any virus ever has.

Then we have a machine that is not a virus testing machine, testing for a virus that hasn't been isolated.

worse than that the pcr test being an Amplification machine that is able to find anything (according to its inventor) if the amplification level is turned up to enough cycles. This is why we had so many false positives. Even Falcui admitted to this.

Also the pcr test only needed to find a fragment of said material for a positive covid test. This has been likened to finding a horse tail and saying you've found the horse.

So all of this coupled with the huge rewards for those gained by a new pandemic, is why I believe it was rebranded flu.

The pcr test also enabled the government's of the world to show how stretched their hospitals were. By constantly testing people and then send them home when they were healthy because of the over amplification of the "test".

Interestingly I think New Zealand had little positive tests because they used a low amplification.

I don't care how mad I sound right now to some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top