Discussion about this post

User's avatar
IKnewSinceMarch2020's avatar

I believe in real science, it’s just that people who choose to do it honestly (like me) often choose topics no one cares about. We won’t get big bucks or big reputations but we also won’t have to lie, or to have our results stolen, distorted or politicised. I once or twice did something moderately useful by mistake and immediately everyone else steals it and distorts it. So I prefer doing quiet, useless things!

But Sasha seems spot on with all this bioweapon/ pandemic fakery. And it would be really good to get more people to understand this but I fear most just can’t, they are too brainwashed.

(I have just today proved something quite useless and it is true and not previously known and my fellow authors and I feel happy. We are bohemian scientists - poor but honest. We do exist).

Expand full comment
Bill Rice, Jr.'s avatar

I'm intrigued by what I think is the key question of our Covid times: Was this really a "deadly" virus that warranted turning the world upside down to ... save massive numbers of lives?

Several narratives have emerged. In the skeptical press, the idea that there was no new "novel virus" - that the entire Pandemic was contrived - seems to be gaining currency. I agree this theory might be true.

If it is, think of the bogus tests that were approved to "prove" we had a "deadly" virus - the PCR Covid test of course , but also all the antibody tests must all be awful and frauds as well. So one scandal should be that everyone who matters in science and medicine relied on two tests that were frauds (probably intentionally so).

My contrarian thought - which is definitely taboo - is that we probably did have a new contagious virus, probably produced in a lab - it just wasn't "deadly." That is, yes, the mad scientists succeeded in creating a new virus - but this coronavirus (like all other coronaviruses) wasn't deadly or wasn't a threat to anyone except the very old with multiple co-morbid conditions.

Of course, the official narrative - the one that counts - is that we had a very contagious virus and it WAS as deadly as any "virus" since, say, the Spanish Flu. This virus also spread throughout the world ... AFTER the lockdowns (to prevent spread) and, for some bizarre reason, started to become "deadly" in the Spring of 2020 - outside the normal "cold and flu" virus season.

Still, the key to the entire operation was not the narrative that we had a contagious new virus - it was the narrative that this was an extremely dangerous and lethal virus. If this virus wasn't any more deadly than the flu or a typical ILI bug, what was the big deal? Why did we all panic and willingly give up our freedoms?

Answer: Because we were assured by everyone who mattered that this was a "deadly" new virus. The big spike in alleged "Covid deaths" is all that really mattered. And we finally got those in northern Italy and New York City .... but were these really "Covid deaths?"

On the big questions, my "early spread" theory reaches the same jaw-dropping conclusion as the group who believes there was no "novel virus." There either was no new virus at all or, if there was/is, it wasn't deadly. So something else explains all the "Covid deaths." And that "something else" is iatrogenic deaths - ordered by CDC protocols. By our own government.

Expand full comment
285 more comments...

No posts