I was trying to keep my comment short. I agree with much of what you have written.
However, covid itself does harm people, even if they are not vaccinated. A covid dog study was recently done and the covid-infected dogs (who were not vaccinated, and had no symptoms) developed serious neurological damage. Covid forms reservoirs in the unva…
I was trying to keep my comment short. I agree with much of what you have written.
However, covid itself does harm people, even if they are not vaccinated. A covid dog study was recently done and the covid-infected dogs (who were not vaccinated, and had no symptoms) developed serious neurological damage. Covid forms reservoirs in the unvaccinated as well as in the vaccinated.
And, there are more measles cases presently, and since they are in children and in Eastern Europe, it is likely to be at least early due to covid damage, rather than vaccine damage. So the question is, given that measles wipes out pre-existing antibodies, how will this affect the antibodies that people people are producing for covid (due to prior infections or the vaccines). That will be interesting to see.
Saying that Covid harms people is like saying that water is wet. Every virus "harms", because that's their job, it's how and why nature developed viruses.
It is all about context: humanity has accepted that as we are part of nature, we cannot detach from viruses, they are just as much part of nature.
Those that are still considering CV19 as something "worse" than other viruses have understood nothing from the past few years. That the harm done is due to the reaction or lack thereof of the authorities, globally. Isolation instead of treatment, mistreatment, total lack of treatment, these are the causes of the harm done. And the proof is in the global data: some countries did not even have excess mortality.
If it weren't Covid 19 but a regular flu, the outcome would have been the same. The only differences may have been stratified differences, genetics, lifestyle, nourishment and such.
You can quote as many studies as you want, these will not change the facts: that this virus would not have been any different if the hysteria had not taken over.
Which is why people really should stop fueling these repeated hysterical media hypes, fully sponsored by those that want you to get afraid from another threat and start vaccinating.
Sorry, but it is a bioweapon. It isn't the usual; I wish it were. And even if it were just a regular virus, I would protect my dogs from a regular virus, too. And no, I'm not vaccinated.
On that part I agree. I think it has been developed, certainly it does not behave like other viruses, there are numerous credible sources stating the same phenomena regarding the temporary loss of taste for example.
But if it is a weapon, it has pretty much been shooting blanks..
The thing with meddling with nature is that you never know what you get, once you start playing with the toys. And I think they failed to make this into something that is stronger than a flu or a bad cold.
The fact that it is different, does not make it worse.
My personal experience and that of many people I know is that we slept it off in a day or three. In my case, the sleepy part was preceded by a change of taste, some types of food (mainly sweet ones) tasted like soap.
But overall, for me it was much milder than the flu and colds I had ever had every year before that.
Now, one might say that's anecdotal and someone else had it much worse than a flu. That is true too, I know people who complained about that. On a sidenote, these were typically the people who were gullible enough to get vaccinated, so I sense a strong bias as a result of the propaganda that influenced the way they perceived their own illness.
But putting aside even that, I do believe that some people had it worse.
So the question is: was it worse, overall? Clearly, we will not know based on anecdotal evidence, my circles seemed to have it less severe, then again I know more healthy people since my circles consist of many active people and not rampant obesity.
So the only credible source are statistics. And a proper analysis, taking into consideration the strong manipulation of the data by the authorities, whose interest it was to portray the virus as much worse than it was. Not just through testing everyone constantly, a hitherto unknown practice, but also by using a test that was not meant for it, was clearly flawed and got pulled out right before the mass vaccination started, so that it would seem as if the vaccination effect was positive.
But despite all the manipulation, they did not manage to hide all the data. And I'm not just talking about the recent push to hide all the vaccination harm, but also the initial true effect of the virus.
Because I did the analysis from the start of 2020 and quite clearly the extent of excess mortality, the only viable parameter to determine whether something statistically worse was taking place is showing one clear thing: whatever excess mortality was taking place in 2020, it was not due to the corona virus..
Before anyone starts pointing at the countries with clear excess mortality before there was a vaccine, let me point out some clear flaws in the methods of people who do not understand the basics of scientific analysis.
1. Apples to apples: you cannot simply compare countries with each other. There are vast geographical differences within the US for example influencing climate, not to speak of the different approaches of Florida compared to California for example. Then there's the age difference of states with more elderly. Then there's the difference in eating habits between countries, the Japanese are hardly obese but then they have more elderly. Then there's the way some countries like Sweden put old people in a pensioner home so any virus sweeps over them in a second, while the Italians keep generations under one roof, but then the infamous Treviso area was full of heavy smoking elderly, etc.
The number of parameters are endless. And even when comparing exactly the same areas, data is tricky: Germany seemed to have had a slight excess mortality. But if one looks at the population change (migration is rampant), one sees that corrected for the increase in population, there was actually no statistically significant excess mortality. Despite some horrible measures taken! And this is valid for some countries with significant changes in population due to recent migration, the numbers of which are even hidden to avoid uproar.
What does work however for comparison, is very unique "pockets" where almost identical regions right next to each other face a totally different approach. There was only one such instance in the world like this, where data was still being monitored well: in Denmark, there was a totally different approach by a bunch of regions next to each other. And here it showed, that the ones taking the liberal approach of no lockdowns and hysteria, showed no excess mortality. I don't have the link at hand but it has been published, I'm sure you can look it up.
This is clear evidence of the huge impact that the interventions had, in a negative way. Which tells a lot about how much milder the virus had been, if people were treated instead of isolated, not put on ventilators that basically killed instead of curing, if they had been allowed to keep exercising instead of closing the gym, etc.
2. Interpretation of what we consider "excess mortality" : every single data source had been manipulated. In my country, it was not just putting all illness and deaths into the Covid basket, even when the person never had a complaint and got over it quickly, perhaps just had a false positive test, but he had an accident months later and the death certificate said Covid. This inflation of the data was just on the input side. But it's worse than that: they were meddling with the output as well, retroactively!
I was doing a weekly download from our health authorities on death numbers and noticed something strange. It is normal that there is a backlog, usually in a busy season like Christmas, when viruses take the elderly, but due to holidays data collection slows down, but picks up again in the months after. In other words, you may have deaths from December that only get reported in May and data gets corrected retroactively for December. Such correction is spread out rather evenly, if you do this exercise at any given time, like I have been doing after this period, for a benchmark. This is normal and therefore acceptable.
What was not normal for the winter of 2020/21 however, is that I noticed that the rate at which the number of dead were added, was INCREASING at an ever higher rate. And not just that, but the timespan that backlogs were related to increased from about 5 months to over 9 months! In other words, considering the backlog in administration, it would make sense that the manpower they have available to process the data makes for a constant data correction for each past month and you could close down a given month after a while. Instead what I saw that for a given month in that winter, the number of retroactive deaths added was increasing exponentially, FOR A SELECT FEW MONTHS ONLY. And suddenly, by mid of 2021 they were still "finding" deaths in 2020 months, an absurdly long time back.
And you can guess for which months this stopped: exactly, right when the vaccines were being rolled out, for the months starting then suddenly much less deaths were found in a backlog. So the early months of 2021 did NOT see an increase of death numbers in the following half year after that. As if by some miracle, the backlog was only existent for the few months before the vaccination. So people were made to believe that that is when many more people died. And since you can play around with the death numbers by putting them in whatever basket you want, I am convinced that the numbers we see now are not the correct numbers. I am sure that many people that died in 2021 are seen in the 2020 statistics. If ever a comprehensive research would take place, heads would roll, because the death certificates are still supposed to be on paper (the push to electronic is very clear, from which point on you can basically change history at the press of a button).
This analysis by the way is unique in the sense that the authorities do not keep the snapshots of the data in public view.. In other words, if one does not download the fresh data, one does not know that a particular week in the past had much lower deaths shown just a few weeks ago. Also, it takes time: you need to watch and download the data a year after a period you want to see, so you can track the difference in backlog administration.
To sum it up: the excess death figures have been heavily manipulated at a central point. And while they are sitting on the data, if someone did not do the due diligence of downloading their data on a weekly basis, you could not notice how they inflated the numbers retroactively.
In other words: the statistics are lying. Not only was there no excess mortality caused by the virus, instead by the human irrational reaction, often through coercion, but even the real data gave been manipulated. And I'm pretty sure many countries have been doing this, the same way that association with Covid for example was done via a test whose cycles were done by labs differently on a country by country basis, sometimes even differently within a country. And we will never know which lab actually used proper cycle numbers as they will never admit to manipulating these. We all know someone with a false positive or even false negative.
Again, I agree with most of what you have written. Including about the manipulation of data. But that is of historical interest at this point.
For you are looking at the acute phase of the virus. I don't care about the acute phase. It is the reservoirs it forms in the brain, the testes, the bone marrow, the gut. Autopsies are finding that no-one clears this thing. Read a day's worth of tweets (and linked studies) by Daniel Brittain Dugger; he is an AIDS activist who is now focusing on covid (that would be easier than me summarizing his arguments). He is somewhat repetitive (since he needs to be) and he is not a genius but he is not a moron and I am convinced; this is going to be like AIDS, destroying the immune system over the course of years. I was living in San Francisco in the mid-80s and I remember that AIDS was "just a cold" when people caught it (I also remember that Fauci was a moron and a psychopath). Then ten years down the road it was something else altogether. That is happening faster with covid We are already seeing the outbreaks of diseases that people with weakened immune systems get.
You are good at looking at information but you are being selective in your focus. I hope that you will be open minded here and at least look at what I'm describing. We need smart people to figure out how to either clear these reservoirs (unlikely) or provide ongoing antivirals to billions of people.
At this point I'm not sure anymore whether you are cherry-picking information from research or have a conviction regarding the virus that is no longer related to reality. Your mentioning AIDS is an excellent example: it never went away, still why does it no longer take victims? Because when they hyped it, to be able to sell their "medicine" people were dying BECAUSE OF their medicine. The illness itself never posed a bigger threat to humanity than the flu and statistics are there to prove it.
The reason I explained my research so extensively is to reflect the process that I, that all of us need to follow to be totally objective before we draw any conclusions regarding any new "threat" that the media is trying to project.
From your words, it seems you are not following a scientific approach or analysis, but have a conviction, based on a limited set of talking points and some assumptions rightout from a media playbook.
How I conclude this?
First of all, you are not reacting to the contents of my analysis,which forms the basis of any conclusion to be drawn. Doing away with the whole method by saying that it is "historic" is like saying that "the science had changed". No, a method works or it does not, irrespective of the circumstances.
When you are talking about the "acute phase" of the virus and finding it irrelevant, you are basically ignoring the only point of relevance : the effect. It is merely an assumption to state that something has the potential for a threat, when we have already seen the effects of it, for 4 years now.
If your thesis is that we have been poisoned by a ticking time bomb that the VIRUS created (now why are you ignoring the blatantly obvious fact of half the world population being injected with an experimental drug, showing much more severe effects than the virus?..), then it is no longer a question whether that happened from some obscure bio lab in China, from nature, through or food supply or by some aliens from Mars for that matter: something this obscure, without an effect that is any different from a flu, is not something you want to fight. But if your assumption of the ticking time bomb is right, you better do a damn good analysis to distinguish between the effects caused by the virus versus that of the killshots.. Because let's be honest, most autopsies currently are vaxxed individuals. And those doing the research are all to eager to ignore that and blame it on Covid. And to prove my point, just check out autopsies done by Ryan Cole or Wolfgang Wodard over there in Germany, where clearly they see the trouble in vaccinated deceased, not those that got over the virus naturally.
Discovery is another point altogether, let the scientists work on that. But that is a totally different action than population engagement, intervention and measures destroying society.
I'm sorry, that's just unnecessary fearmongering. And as such, much more detrimental than the effect of the virus itself. Because what we have seen for the past years is a systematic destruction of society, a power grab and an increasing totalitarian power concentration by politics and the WHO, based on such fear mongering.
And quite frankly, I have had enough of that. Anyone ringing the alarm bells of new threats is the threat itself, in my opinion. Because first it's just (unfounded) speculation, the next step is fascism "to protect us" . And since it always starts ground-up, the real threat are the gullible populus, eager to be slaves.
Humanity has dealt just fine with health by taking small steps in hygiene and the food supply. Our genes don't need protection or help. All the epidemics were based on lies and hysteria led to wrong measures in all cases. That incudes the Spanish flu, where they induced the citokine storm, instead of letting people recover naturally. It includes all diseases that are endemic, like the measles, that no vaccines will stop because it stopped being deadly by the time they first isolated the virus in the sixties and started making vaccines, which will weaken the immune system to all other viruses, but make good money for those that led you believe if what a threat the virus is.
And it also includes the so-called AIDS epidemic that you mention: were they not treated by Fauci's poison, the death toll would have been insignificant.
I think what you are not taking into consideration is basic biology: there is something called natural selection. Humans are all prone to illnesses and it is the weak that cannot defend against them, that's how nature works. We cannot defend all, nor do we live forever. So whenever statistics are brought in to explain the "danger" of viruses and illnesses, being blind to the true cause of the harm, being lifestyle, food, water and air poisoning, is nothing more than misunderstanding how nature works. And whether they developed some bioweapon or not, if its effects are not there, it means nature did its job and we fight it off, naturally. As I mentioned, blanks.
We need to get back to a proper understanding of the place if humanity in nature. If we keep considering nature as a threat that we need to defend against, we will isolate ourselves more and more from it, which is exactly the disharmony that will destroy us.
At this point, there is zero proof that they succeeded in developing something that passes a real threat. As far as I am concerned, being open also means that we also ever go be open to the idea that even the virus is a lie. I am not saying it is, but the only thing that counts is the effect. And as long as that is not beyond a flu, I need a lot more convincing that there is any other threat out there than those people claiming that we are all in grave danger.
I was trying to keep my comment short. I agree with much of what you have written.
However, covid itself does harm people, even if they are not vaccinated. A covid dog study was recently done and the covid-infected dogs (who were not vaccinated, and had no symptoms) developed serious neurological damage. Covid forms reservoirs in the unvaccinated as well as in the vaccinated.
And, there are more measles cases presently, and since they are in children and in Eastern Europe, it is likely to be at least early due to covid damage, rather than vaccine damage. So the question is, given that measles wipes out pre-existing antibodies, how will this affect the antibodies that people people are producing for covid (due to prior infections or the vaccines). That will be interesting to see.
Saying that Covid harms people is like saying that water is wet. Every virus "harms", because that's their job, it's how and why nature developed viruses.
It is all about context: humanity has accepted that as we are part of nature, we cannot detach from viruses, they are just as much part of nature.
Those that are still considering CV19 as something "worse" than other viruses have understood nothing from the past few years. That the harm done is due to the reaction or lack thereof of the authorities, globally. Isolation instead of treatment, mistreatment, total lack of treatment, these are the causes of the harm done. And the proof is in the global data: some countries did not even have excess mortality.
If it weren't Covid 19 but a regular flu, the outcome would have been the same. The only differences may have been stratified differences, genetics, lifestyle, nourishment and such.
You can quote as many studies as you want, these will not change the facts: that this virus would not have been any different if the hysteria had not taken over.
Which is why people really should stop fueling these repeated hysterical media hypes, fully sponsored by those that want you to get afraid from another threat and start vaccinating.
Sorry, but it is a bioweapon. It isn't the usual; I wish it were. And even if it were just a regular virus, I would protect my dogs from a regular virus, too. And no, I'm not vaccinated.
On that part I agree. I think it has been developed, certainly it does not behave like other viruses, there are numerous credible sources stating the same phenomena regarding the temporary loss of taste for example.
But if it is a weapon, it has pretty much been shooting blanks..
The thing with meddling with nature is that you never know what you get, once you start playing with the toys. And I think they failed to make this into something that is stronger than a flu or a bad cold.
The fact that it is different, does not make it worse.
My personal experience and that of many people I know is that we slept it off in a day or three. In my case, the sleepy part was preceded by a change of taste, some types of food (mainly sweet ones) tasted like soap.
But overall, for me it was much milder than the flu and colds I had ever had every year before that.
Now, one might say that's anecdotal and someone else had it much worse than a flu. That is true too, I know people who complained about that. On a sidenote, these were typically the people who were gullible enough to get vaccinated, so I sense a strong bias as a result of the propaganda that influenced the way they perceived their own illness.
But putting aside even that, I do believe that some people had it worse.
So the question is: was it worse, overall? Clearly, we will not know based on anecdotal evidence, my circles seemed to have it less severe, then again I know more healthy people since my circles consist of many active people and not rampant obesity.
So the only credible source are statistics. And a proper analysis, taking into consideration the strong manipulation of the data by the authorities, whose interest it was to portray the virus as much worse than it was. Not just through testing everyone constantly, a hitherto unknown practice, but also by using a test that was not meant for it, was clearly flawed and got pulled out right before the mass vaccination started, so that it would seem as if the vaccination effect was positive.
But despite all the manipulation, they did not manage to hide all the data. And I'm not just talking about the recent push to hide all the vaccination harm, but also the initial true effect of the virus.
Because I did the analysis from the start of 2020 and quite clearly the extent of excess mortality, the only viable parameter to determine whether something statistically worse was taking place is showing one clear thing: whatever excess mortality was taking place in 2020, it was not due to the corona virus..
Before anyone starts pointing at the countries with clear excess mortality before there was a vaccine, let me point out some clear flaws in the methods of people who do not understand the basics of scientific analysis.
1. Apples to apples: you cannot simply compare countries with each other. There are vast geographical differences within the US for example influencing climate, not to speak of the different approaches of Florida compared to California for example. Then there's the age difference of states with more elderly. Then there's the difference in eating habits between countries, the Japanese are hardly obese but then they have more elderly. Then there's the way some countries like Sweden put old people in a pensioner home so any virus sweeps over them in a second, while the Italians keep generations under one roof, but then the infamous Treviso area was full of heavy smoking elderly, etc.
The number of parameters are endless. And even when comparing exactly the same areas, data is tricky: Germany seemed to have had a slight excess mortality. But if one looks at the population change (migration is rampant), one sees that corrected for the increase in population, there was actually no statistically significant excess mortality. Despite some horrible measures taken! And this is valid for some countries with significant changes in population due to recent migration, the numbers of which are even hidden to avoid uproar.
What does work however for comparison, is very unique "pockets" where almost identical regions right next to each other face a totally different approach. There was only one such instance in the world like this, where data was still being monitored well: in Denmark, there was a totally different approach by a bunch of regions next to each other. And here it showed, that the ones taking the liberal approach of no lockdowns and hysteria, showed no excess mortality. I don't have the link at hand but it has been published, I'm sure you can look it up.
This is clear evidence of the huge impact that the interventions had, in a negative way. Which tells a lot about how much milder the virus had been, if people were treated instead of isolated, not put on ventilators that basically killed instead of curing, if they had been allowed to keep exercising instead of closing the gym, etc.
2. Interpretation of what we consider "excess mortality" : every single data source had been manipulated. In my country, it was not just putting all illness and deaths into the Covid basket, even when the person never had a complaint and got over it quickly, perhaps just had a false positive test, but he had an accident months later and the death certificate said Covid. This inflation of the data was just on the input side. But it's worse than that: they were meddling with the output as well, retroactively!
I was doing a weekly download from our health authorities on death numbers and noticed something strange. It is normal that there is a backlog, usually in a busy season like Christmas, when viruses take the elderly, but due to holidays data collection slows down, but picks up again in the months after. In other words, you may have deaths from December that only get reported in May and data gets corrected retroactively for December. Such correction is spread out rather evenly, if you do this exercise at any given time, like I have been doing after this period, for a benchmark. This is normal and therefore acceptable.
What was not normal for the winter of 2020/21 however, is that I noticed that the rate at which the number of dead were added, was INCREASING at an ever higher rate. And not just that, but the timespan that backlogs were related to increased from about 5 months to over 9 months! In other words, considering the backlog in administration, it would make sense that the manpower they have available to process the data makes for a constant data correction for each past month and you could close down a given month after a while. Instead what I saw that for a given month in that winter, the number of retroactive deaths added was increasing exponentially, FOR A SELECT FEW MONTHS ONLY. And suddenly, by mid of 2021 they were still "finding" deaths in 2020 months, an absurdly long time back.
And you can guess for which months this stopped: exactly, right when the vaccines were being rolled out, for the months starting then suddenly much less deaths were found in a backlog. So the early months of 2021 did NOT see an increase of death numbers in the following half year after that. As if by some miracle, the backlog was only existent for the few months before the vaccination. So people were made to believe that that is when many more people died. And since you can play around with the death numbers by putting them in whatever basket you want, I am convinced that the numbers we see now are not the correct numbers. I am sure that many people that died in 2021 are seen in the 2020 statistics. If ever a comprehensive research would take place, heads would roll, because the death certificates are still supposed to be on paper (the push to electronic is very clear, from which point on you can basically change history at the press of a button).
This analysis by the way is unique in the sense that the authorities do not keep the snapshots of the data in public view.. In other words, if one does not download the fresh data, one does not know that a particular week in the past had much lower deaths shown just a few weeks ago. Also, it takes time: you need to watch and download the data a year after a period you want to see, so you can track the difference in backlog administration.
To sum it up: the excess death figures have been heavily manipulated at a central point. And while they are sitting on the data, if someone did not do the due diligence of downloading their data on a weekly basis, you could not notice how they inflated the numbers retroactively.
In other words: the statistics are lying. Not only was there no excess mortality caused by the virus, instead by the human irrational reaction, often through coercion, but even the real data gave been manipulated. And I'm pretty sure many countries have been doing this, the same way that association with Covid for example was done via a test whose cycles were done by labs differently on a country by country basis, sometimes even differently within a country. And we will never know which lab actually used proper cycle numbers as they will never admit to manipulating these. We all know someone with a false positive or even false negative.
Again, I agree with most of what you have written. Including about the manipulation of data. But that is of historical interest at this point.
For you are looking at the acute phase of the virus. I don't care about the acute phase. It is the reservoirs it forms in the brain, the testes, the bone marrow, the gut. Autopsies are finding that no-one clears this thing. Read a day's worth of tweets (and linked studies) by Daniel Brittain Dugger; he is an AIDS activist who is now focusing on covid (that would be easier than me summarizing his arguments). He is somewhat repetitive (since he needs to be) and he is not a genius but he is not a moron and I am convinced; this is going to be like AIDS, destroying the immune system over the course of years. I was living in San Francisco in the mid-80s and I remember that AIDS was "just a cold" when people caught it (I also remember that Fauci was a moron and a psychopath). Then ten years down the road it was something else altogether. That is happening faster with covid We are already seeing the outbreaks of diseases that people with weakened immune systems get.
You are good at looking at information but you are being selective in your focus. I hope that you will be open minded here and at least look at what I'm describing. We need smart people to figure out how to either clear these reservoirs (unlikely) or provide ongoing antivirals to billions of people.
At this point I'm not sure anymore whether you are cherry-picking information from research or have a conviction regarding the virus that is no longer related to reality. Your mentioning AIDS is an excellent example: it never went away, still why does it no longer take victims? Because when they hyped it, to be able to sell their "medicine" people were dying BECAUSE OF their medicine. The illness itself never posed a bigger threat to humanity than the flu and statistics are there to prove it.
The reason I explained my research so extensively is to reflect the process that I, that all of us need to follow to be totally objective before we draw any conclusions regarding any new "threat" that the media is trying to project.
From your words, it seems you are not following a scientific approach or analysis, but have a conviction, based on a limited set of talking points and some assumptions rightout from a media playbook.
How I conclude this?
First of all, you are not reacting to the contents of my analysis,which forms the basis of any conclusion to be drawn. Doing away with the whole method by saying that it is "historic" is like saying that "the science had changed". No, a method works or it does not, irrespective of the circumstances.
When you are talking about the "acute phase" of the virus and finding it irrelevant, you are basically ignoring the only point of relevance : the effect. It is merely an assumption to state that something has the potential for a threat, when we have already seen the effects of it, for 4 years now.
If your thesis is that we have been poisoned by a ticking time bomb that the VIRUS created (now why are you ignoring the blatantly obvious fact of half the world population being injected with an experimental drug, showing much more severe effects than the virus?..), then it is no longer a question whether that happened from some obscure bio lab in China, from nature, through or food supply or by some aliens from Mars for that matter: something this obscure, without an effect that is any different from a flu, is not something you want to fight. But if your assumption of the ticking time bomb is right, you better do a damn good analysis to distinguish between the effects caused by the virus versus that of the killshots.. Because let's be honest, most autopsies currently are vaxxed individuals. And those doing the research are all to eager to ignore that and blame it on Covid. And to prove my point, just check out autopsies done by Ryan Cole or Wolfgang Wodard over there in Germany, where clearly they see the trouble in vaccinated deceased, not those that got over the virus naturally.
Discovery is another point altogether, let the scientists work on that. But that is a totally different action than population engagement, intervention and measures destroying society.
I'm sorry, that's just unnecessary fearmongering. And as such, much more detrimental than the effect of the virus itself. Because what we have seen for the past years is a systematic destruction of society, a power grab and an increasing totalitarian power concentration by politics and the WHO, based on such fear mongering.
And quite frankly, I have had enough of that. Anyone ringing the alarm bells of new threats is the threat itself, in my opinion. Because first it's just (unfounded) speculation, the next step is fascism "to protect us" . And since it always starts ground-up, the real threat are the gullible populus, eager to be slaves.
Humanity has dealt just fine with health by taking small steps in hygiene and the food supply. Our genes don't need protection or help. All the epidemics were based on lies and hysteria led to wrong measures in all cases. That incudes the Spanish flu, where they induced the citokine storm, instead of letting people recover naturally. It includes all diseases that are endemic, like the measles, that no vaccines will stop because it stopped being deadly by the time they first isolated the virus in the sixties and started making vaccines, which will weaken the immune system to all other viruses, but make good money for those that led you believe if what a threat the virus is.
And it also includes the so-called AIDS epidemic that you mention: were they not treated by Fauci's poison, the death toll would have been insignificant.
I think what you are not taking into consideration is basic biology: there is something called natural selection. Humans are all prone to illnesses and it is the weak that cannot defend against them, that's how nature works. We cannot defend all, nor do we live forever. So whenever statistics are brought in to explain the "danger" of viruses and illnesses, being blind to the true cause of the harm, being lifestyle, food, water and air poisoning, is nothing more than misunderstanding how nature works. And whether they developed some bioweapon or not, if its effects are not there, it means nature did its job and we fight it off, naturally. As I mentioned, blanks.
We need to get back to a proper understanding of the place if humanity in nature. If we keep considering nature as a threat that we need to defend against, we will isolate ourselves more and more from it, which is exactly the disharmony that will destroy us.
At this point, there is zero proof that they succeeded in developing something that passes a real threat. As far as I am concerned, being open also means that we also ever go be open to the idea that even the virus is a lie. I am not saying it is, but the only thing that counts is the effect. And as long as that is not beyond a flu, I need a lot more convincing that there is any other threat out there than those people claiming that we are all in grave danger.