Contact me for feedback or questions! I reply to everyone.

Coronavirus scare and the blueprint for slavery

Pathology is science, pandemic is politics
- How it all began -
- The "official" beginning -
- How dangerous is the new coronavirus? -
- Analyzing case rates -
- Analyzing death rates -
- Analyzing contagion -
- Sweden versus Belarus (The Panic Destroyer)
- Other fake claims -
- COVID was created in a laboratory -
- What about the no virus theory? -
- Do the authorities have our best interests in mind? -
- The authorities' useless coronavirus response -
- Why COVID amnesty is a really bad idea -
- Pandemic-related deaths -
- Kary Mullis -
- Jovenel Moïse -
- John Magufuli -
- Pierre Nkurunziza -
- Andry Rajoelina (attempted assassination) -
- Summary -
- COVID vaccines suck -
- Analyzing Pfizer's trial -
- Low vaccinated countries did not get ravaged by COVID -
- Natural immunity versus vaccine -
- Analyzing VAERS -
- Analyzing V-Safe -
- Extreme consequences of the COVID vaccines -
- The vaccine destroys the female reproductive system -
- The vaccine destroys the male reproductive system -
- The COVID vaccine is not a vaccine -
- More doses are worse for COVID survival -
- How the devil lured his victims -
- Prominent vax shill runs away from debate -
- Summary -
- Measures that actually work -
- Vitamin A -
- Vitamin D -
- Selenium -
- Vitamin E -
- Vitamin C -
- Zinc -
- Summary -
- Sources for the relevant nutrients -
- Herbal medicine -
- If it's not about your health, then what? -
- The blueprint for slavery -
- The not-so-Great Reset -
- Summary of the agenda -
- If this was not a PSY-OP -
- The fake pandemic brings societal problems into the open -
- Every single part of the mainstream narrative was wrong -
- Additional resources -

How it all began

October 18, 2019. A New York City hotel is holding a pandemic drill (archive) (MozArchive) which is supposed to educate the world leaders on what to do if such a situation arose in real life. You can check out the full list of participants here (archive) - for now, just note that it contained people both from the USA and China. The highlight video of the event mentions stuff such as:

Literally everything stated in the video has later happened in the real world. But the single piece of evidence that seals the deal is the fact that they mentioned a novel coronavirus right at the start - instead of any one of the hundreds other possible infections (archive). How could they have known, if this wasn't planned in advance? They said (archive) that this wasn't a prediction and that the simulation was based on SARS (archive) (also a coronavirus) - but again, why not any of the other possible infections? And why did they get everything else right? These vermin have engineered this so-called pandemic and now - by saying "it's a coincidence, lol" - are mocking us right into our faces.

The "official" beginning

December 30, 2019. Li Wenliang, a doctor at the Wuhan Central Hospital, told his colleagues that 7 people were diagnosed with SARS infections that were traced back to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and that precautions should be taken. A few days later, Li was "educated" by the police to "not spread rumors". In the end, he was proven right - patients were coming in with a "new type of coronary pneumonia" and one of them even infected him on January 12 (translation graciously provided by the Big G botnet):

I was very worried at first, but the doctor would comfort me every day when I went to the ward. I am no longer feverish, and my mental state is better than a few days ago. I believe the hospital and the doctor, I will definitely be cured.
After recovering, I want to quickly return to the front line and continue to see the patient.

So he was on his way to health. His parents also got infected and fully recovered:

My parents also had fever and other symptoms after me. The lung CT showed ground-glass lesions. They are being treated in other hospitals in Wuhan, but they are all fine now, without any problems

However, he ended up dying (archive), even though he wasn't in the age group (34) that dies from corona:

Early probability of dying from COVID by age

UPDATE: these are early figures and have now been proven terribly wrong. Despite that, even according to those early ones, Li should not have died. Here are the updated ones. His parents - aged over 60 (with a significantly higher, but still extremely low death rate) - have been able to recover without any problems. But well, somehow he died; can't rule out malice since the death of a young doctor would be very useful for narrative purposes - and once you're in the hospital, it's easy to be killed incognito. Anyway, that's how the COVID story had started...officially.

I think the Wenliang saga was widely publicized for a reason. First of all, it allowed the elites to instantly take control of the narrative. Immediately the coronavirus is portrayed as this ruthless killer that has to be contained fast or it's going to claim us all. Then, it has made it possible to blame everything on big bad China that eats weird animals and tried to censor poor Wenliang. This starts the country fights for the plebs (alt media like NaturalNews were happy to go all in on the China hate) while the elites all happily work together during Event-201 and the creation of corona.

How dangerous is the new coronavirus?

Analyzing case rates

The amount of reported COVID cases is the first number upon which the "pandemic" was built on. Generally, it depends on the results of PCR tests. A PCR test is a tool that checks whether you have a certain genetic sequence in your body (in this case, a part of the COVID genetic sequence). Every PCR test is set at a certain cycle threshold, which just means the amount of times you amplify the sequence you are trying to find. This means that, the higher the cycle threshold, the more people will be found positive (less amount of virus sequence in the body will trigger the test). However, less amount of virus sequence in the body also means less potential to get sick and infect others. The important thing to understand here, is that you can increase or decrease the amount of reported cases just by changing the amount of cycles the tests are run at. To determine the logically optimal amount of cycles to use, we need to find the correlation between the cycle threshold and the infectivity. That's exactly what this study (MozArchive) has attempted to do:

Graph of cycles required for PCR test accuracy

This graph shows that you cannot manufacture infectious virus in culture if the sample tested positive at 36 cycles or more. Even the people who tested positive with 30 cycles can only infect others 20% of the time. Now guess what amount of cycles have the authorities used for their tests?

Showing the amount of cycles the United Kingdom used for their PCR tests

This is only in the UK, but surely, this fraud was repeated worldwide. UPDATE: the same thing has been done in Australia - Each amplification reaction is known as a cycle, and usually 35-45 cycles are undertaken. And so, probably every country is in on the fraud. In terms of the UK graph - look at the amount of times figures above 36 appear, even though they are totally unjustifiable scientifically, since those cases cannot infect others. Since the 30-35 range is contagious 3-20% of the time (according to the first graph), the vast majority of cases tested positively with 30 to 45 cycles are fraudulent. And there are a lot of those:

Covid cases in the UK by cycle threshold

About 30% of overall Covid cases are in the 31-40 CT range, and ~90% of those will be false positives. Even then, that's still the best case scenario for the fearmongers. Because other studies got even more damning results:

SARS-CoV-2 Vero cell infectivity was only observed for RT-PCR Ct < 24

According to this study, anyone with a positive test at 25 cycles or more is not contagious. If we took this study at face value, about 3/4 of the listed COVID cases would be fraudulent. But it gets even worse - according to this paper:

Culture medium presents ideal conditions for a virus to grow and may detect virus that is not present in the quantities required to initiate infection in a human host.

This means that the infectious potential is even lower between humans than in culture, and so the "real" amount of cases drops even more. They clearly wanted as many cases as possible to scare you, and that's why they set up the tests this way. There were already suspicions back in February 2020 that the tests are only 20% accurate (archive).

When the infection rate of the close contacts and the sensitivity and specificity of reported results were taken as the point estimates, the positive predictive value of the active screening was only 19.67%

Of course, the relevance of any of this is all assuming that the test results are being accurately reported. But it turns out that the fearmongers actually double-counted (archive) tens of thousands of them in the UK. I suspect they've done similar things in many other countries, so the overall case amount will be overreported even more. See how easy it is to create a "pandemic" when you control what is reported as a case? Hey, why not? No one can check up on you or punish you.

Either way - any time PCR testing is used - it is assumed that you having some genetic sequence inside your body means you are by definition sick and / or can infect others. Kary Mullis - the inventor of the PCR test - denied this interpretation, however (archive); all a positive result means is that something's there, not that it's necessarily doing something bad. Due to this inherent issue, a Portuguese court has ruled that quarantining (imprisoning) people due to a positive test result is illegal (archive) (translation by a friend ^_^):

the diagnosis as to the existence of a disease, in relation to each and every person, is a matter that cannot be made by Law, Resolution, Decree, Regulation or any other normative way. Any diagnosis or any actof health surveillance carried out without prior medical observation violates Regulation No. 698/2019, of 5.9, as well as the provisions of article 97 of the Statute of the Order of Doctors, being liable to constitute the crime of usurpation of functions by article 358 b, of the Penal Code. Any person or entity that issues an order, the content of which leads to deprivation of physical freedom, ambulatory, of others that does not fit the legal provisions, namely in the provisions of article 27 of the CRP, will be making an illegal detention. By decision of 08/26-2020, the request for habeas corpus was granted, as it was illegal to detain them, determining the immediate restitution of the Claimants' freedom.

But hey, there is more (as usual). Sometimes other, even less reliable methods have been used to inflate the stats. Early on in the pandemic China added a bunch of cases entirely due to symptoms - On Wednesday, the province started including the number of clinically diagnosed cases in the total number of new confirmed cases, which added 13,332 cases to the provincial total; this is even less reliable than the PCR test, as it's not specific - many COVID symptoms are repeated across other diseases. Texas did something similar (archive) - DSHS is adding case counts for probable cases statewide and by county. Probable cases are those identified through antigen testing or a combination of symptoms and a known exposure without a more likely diagnosis.. And yet, this is the statistic the elites chose to scare you with. The trickery, though, didn't stop at the testing:

Analyzing the death rates

Imagine you have in your hand a gun that can only kill people that wear green elf hats - it does absolutely nothing to anyone else. And even then - you'd have to wait weeks until the elf hat enthusiasts would maybe die. Wouldn't you think that is weird? Wouldn't you begin to wonder if - perhaps - it is those hats that kill their wearers, and not your weapon? If real guns worked that way, absolutely no one would buy such a piece of crap. Yet, that is exactly what COVID-19 does - except that the hat is replaced with chronic diseases and age (archive):

COVID death rate with and without chronic diseases

As you can see, it's almost impossible to die from corona without those pre-existing diseases. Early Italy, which has had the highest death rate out of all the countries - provides even stronger evidence for my thesis. According to Silvio Brusaferro (archive) - head of Italy's health institute - not one of the over 4000 deaths has been confirmed to be exclusively from corona:

Rome, 13 mar 19: 12- (Agenzia Nova) - people who died from coronavirus in Italy, who had no other pathologies, could be only two. This is what appears from the medical records examined so far by the Istituto superiore di sanità, according to the president of the Institute, Silvio Brusaferro, during the press conference held today at the Civil Protection in Rome. "Positive deceased patients have an average of over 80 years - 80.3 to be exact - and are basically predominantly male"
Only two people were not at the moment carriers of pathologies, but even in these two cases, the examination of the records is not concluded and could, therefore, emerge causes of death other than COVID-19.

Translation graciously provided by the Yandex botnet. So, not only were the people who died old (look at the chart at the top of this report to realize anyone under age 60 is pretty much immune), but they've also all had chronic diseases - both massive causes of death that certainly don't need help from some puny virus. The deaths are also almost all from heavily polluted areas (archive) - yet another contributing factor independent of corona. Anytime someone gets sick or dies, there is a multitude of contributing factors that control the progression of the situation. But - in the chase for a high COVID death statistic - this common sense understanding has been completely ignored and everything blamed on the mighty virus.

More recent evidence shows hospitals in the US are actually paid for putting COVID-19 on the death certificates (archive). Also, it seems flu deaths have almost completely disappeared (archive) this year, just like that. Of course, it's because they've been reassigned to nCov. If you think that's bad, wait until you see how the United Kingdom counts its coronavirus deaths:

Criteria for a death to be counted as COVID related (in the UK)

That's right! If you get tested positive, then fall of a ladder (archive), you're a COVID death case. Example is from Croatia; I suspect they've done this kind of stuff everywhere, just only the UK government bothered to spill it. UPDATE November 2022: Turns out Finland did the same:

It means that a whopping 14% of the reported covid deaths didn't actually have anything to do with covid after all.

Not only did they add deaths that were completely unrelated...

The average age for people who have died of covid in Finland is 85 years old. 85 years old. Can you guess what the average life expectancy is in Finland for the population as a whole? It is 82.

...But also, Finland confirmed what we already knew from the very early Italy data: that only the very old - or those with already severely compromised health (and usually both) - actually die from corona. The "pandemic" never had an evidential basis. UPDATE November 2022: hey, I have something even better. You can calculate your risk of dying from corona; I just did a test run of a young lean white guy with diabetes, coronary heart disease, liver cirrhosis and asthma. The results:

QCovid calculated risk of someone with 4 chronic diseases dying from the new coronavirus

So - if someone with 4 chronic diseases can't manage to die from COVID (1 in 100 000 chance) - should you (a presumably healthy young person), worry? And remember, that this is based on the UK data; if you are in Africa, Belarus or any place with lower death rates - the risk will be even more laughable. Was there a point to any of the scaremongering? Was there a point to any of the restrictions, even if you believe they work (and they don't)? Also lol:

The QCovid tool may only be used in Great Britain by clinically trained professionals, for academic research and for the purpose of peer review.

How dare the plebs gain some knowledge without the approval from their masters. UPDATE December 2022: Hey, let's compare COVID to other diseases. According to the WHO, 6,656,601 died from COVID up until now (December 24):

Global COVID deaths up until December 2022 according to the WHO

That's 3 years, and with fudged stats (but we will give the benefit of doubt to the scaremongers for now). On the other hand - in only one year (2020) - diabetes has killed more people:

The International Diabetes Federation reported 6.7 million deaths worldwide among adults with diabetes in 2021

If you extrapolated that, it would be 3 times more deaths than during the whole 3 years COVID has been around. And yet, have you ever heard the mainstream media "informing" you about how many people died a certain day from diabetes, all day every day? Of course you didn't, and just by this you should realize the "reporting" was meant to propagandize you. And remember that diabetes is doing this kind of damage every year for decades, instead of only since 2020 like COVID - yet that isn't enough for the media to care, proving it's not about your health. How about cancer?

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for nearly 10 million deaths in 2020.

Again extrapolating, it would be 30 million in those 3 years of COVID, which is almost five times more. Of course, those diseases have been ignored during the "pandemic" because they could not be used to install any kind of restrictions (in fact, their sufferers have been left to rot with the denied doctor visits). Funnily enough, the WHO says this:

Around one-third of deaths from cancer are due to tobacco use, high body mass index, alcohol consumption, low fruit and vegetable intake, and lack of physical activity.

Now where was that during COVID? I don't remember hearing it from mainstream media - only scaremongering about "the number" and trying to imprison you in your house and inject venom into your arm. Of course, they could not have emphasized that lifestyle or environmental factors affect your COVID disease severity and death risk, because the destruction of freedom and the induction of mental changes was the point of the pandemic in the first place. And accomplishing the task would not have been possible if people believed they could actually do something aside from hiding like cockroaches under the fridge.

As we can see, the COVID gun is full of dummy bullets; it can only seem powerful by plagiarising the deaths caused by other viruses, diseases, pollution, age or really any cause. The elites have masterfully ignored all those other issues just so they could throw around the COVID label everywhere and come up with as high of a number as possible (and they still coudn't beat diabetes, cancer or heart disease). The appearance of a pandemic was created by constant repetition of those numbers in the minds of people - even though many chronic diseases have had much more impact and for longer, and it is the chronic disease that makes you susceptible to COVID anyway. This is the way the broken gun was then used to shut down the world (which was the actual point, instead of your health). Okay, let's go for strike three against corona, which is its alleged extreme contagion:

Analyzing contagion

What would you guess is the probability of catching the virus if you live with someone who already has it? According to the media hype, you'd think it's pretty much a certainty. And yet the WHO's report tells a different story:

preliminary studies ongoing in Guangdong estimate the secondary attack rate in households ranges from 3-10%

What about non-family specific close contacts?

As of 17 February, in Shenzhen City, among 2842 identified close contacts, 2842 (100%) were traced and 2240 (72%) have completed medical observation. Among the close contacts, 88 (2.8%) were found to be infected with COVID-19.
As of 17 February, in Sichuan Province, among 25493 identified close contacts, 25347 (99%) were traced and 23178 (91%) have completed medical observation. Among the close contacts, 0.9% were found to be infected with COVID-19.
As of 20 February, in Guangdong Province, among 9939 identified close contacts, 9939 (100%) were traced and 7765 (78%) have completed medical observation. Among the close contacts, 479 (4.8%) were found to be infected with COVID-19.

So, 38274 people - who were all in close contact with someone infected - were tested in three different locations, and the overall rate of contagion was a puny 3.1%. To better visualise this: imagine a corona-infected person shaking hands with 100 different people - only 3 of them will catch the virus. Of course, the types and durations of "close contacts" will be different, but you can expect the average contagion rate to be about 3%. For a practical example, check this (archive).

Summarizing: 350 people were traveling from Wuhan to Toronto; one of them was positive for corona (confirmed through 2 different tests, each repeated twice). The flight lasted 15 hours, and despite there being 25 close contacts with the infected person, not one of them caught the virus. UPDATE: found another very well done study (archive) which supports low contagion. What the authors did was trace the close contacts of the 100 corona-infected people, locked them up after the last time they've met up during the study period, and checked if they got sick. What were the results?

In this case-ascertained study of 100 cases of confirmed COVID-19 and 2761 close contacts, the overall secondary clinical attack rate was 0.7%

Amazing - the killer virus can't even muster enough strength to infect 1 person per 100. Anyway - for honesty's sake - the study mostly tested only the people who actually got symptoms. But if the killer virus is sitting in your body harmlessly, what's the problem? Shouldn't the point be to avoid disease instead of a label? However, they did test even some asymptomatic people:

For high-risk populations, including household and hospital contacts, RT-PCR was performed regardless of symptoms.

For family and household, the contagion rate was somewhat higher - about 5%. This is still 95 out of 100 people living together with a COVID-19 case who will avoid infection. What about some studies that appear to show higher rates? Let's check one out (archive):

The secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in household is 16.3%

Oh no, 16%! I'm already hiding under my bed. This study measured only household infections, so it has no relevance to random outside "close contacts". Anyway, even the 16% isn't valid when you consider this gem:

The quarantined contacts who had symptoms were inspected at least 4 times by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR until their tests were positive.

Hahahahaha. So, the way they got this contagion rate is thanks to fraud. Literally - repeat the test until we get the results we want. Thanks for the admission. But how many journalists will pick this bit up? And how many studies just completely avoid mentioning such information? But I digress. Anyway, when a study is properly done (the previous one only had one test per person), COVID-19 fails to show an infectivity worth worrying about. Recall, also, that the virus does not spread by touching surfaces (archive) despite what the authorities were scaring us with all this time. Now, to be quite honest, some studies found different results:

How long does COVID remain infectious on various surfaces

There are some problems with them though. First of all, they are done in experimental conditions - temperature and many other parameters are kept constant, which doesn't have much to with what happens in real life. Second, and maybe more damning to the narrative - is how the ability of COVID-19 to survive on surfaces - even if just in experimental conditions - isn't any higher than the previous SARS. And the old virus has only infected 8000 people (archive) worldwide - and that's without a lockdown - so it's obvious that touching surfaces cannot be a route for the spread of COVID-19. As usual, the evidence allegedly proving the danger of corona ends up shooting the fearmongers in the foot, and confirming that the pandemic is fake.

Okay, so it's obvious they ran a scare campaign based on nonexistent, bad or fake data. Let's put the final nail in the coffin for the official narrative so we can move on to more important stuff:

Sweden versus Belarus (The Panic Destroyer)

Recently a claim is being spread (archive) that Sweden has the highest COVID-19 death rate in the world because of their weak response to the pandemic. Let us analyze it and we'll see that - contrary to supporting the fearmongers policies - it totally destroys them. First, let's check out Sweden's restrictions (archive):

primary schools remain open, borders are only partially closed, there are no compulsory quarantines or shutdowns of restaurants, bars, or public spaces

I'd say Sweden's response was much saner than the other countries'. After all, in most places coronavirus transmission simply doesn't happen (archive). However, social distancing was still recommended and public gatherings of more than 50 people banned. What were the results? As of writing this (June 22), Sweden has 10 097 695 people living in it; 385 695 of them were tested for coronavirus. Of those tested, 56 043 (14.5%) came out positive. Belarus, on the other hand - has a population of 9 449 390. They tested 876 639 people for COVID-19 (more than twice the amount of Sweden) and 59 023 (6.7%) of those came out positive. So, very similar population size and yet Belarus has less than half coronavirus cases. Here's a worldometer screenshot so that no one claims I've made up the data:

COVID cases and deaths in Belarus and Sweden

Anyway - why is this significant? Because Belarus' response to the coronavirus was even weaker than Sweden's! They've pretty much completely ignored COVID-19 (archive) - schools were closed only for two additional weeks, businesses stayed open, sports were still being played (AFAIK, the only country in the world to do so), and even a huge military parade was held (archive) with most participants not wearing masks. If the rate of infection depended on the severity of lockdown, we would expect Belarus to rank way above Sweden - yet it's the opposite (again, less than half the cases). Comparing to some other countries - in Spain, 5.7% of people who get tested turn out to have the virus. Belgium - 5.5%; Netherlands - 9%; Switzerland - 6.1%; Germany - 4%; France - 8%; Turkey - 6.3%. So, Belarus (6.7%) is right in line with countries that have had huge lockdowns. Brazil is another funny example - 45% people tested have COVID-19 despite all the restrictions. Let that sink in - it's pretty much irrefutable evidence that the lockdowns were pointless and have nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of infections. Of course, this also kills any computer model which relied on the recommended measures being effective (e.g the Imperial College model). Though it's the amount of actual cases that matters more (since the lockdowns should have prevented contagion, but didn't) - the original claim was about death rates, so let's check those out:

According to the June 9 worldometer data (archive) - Sweden's death rate is a little over 10% of all corona cases! This has been used by the media as proof (archive) that it's their lax response which has caused the deaths. Let's bust that claim right open:

COVID deaths by age group in Sweden

Similar to Italy - it's just old people yet again. I suspect a bunch of "co-morbidities" as well, but I don't think we have such great data proving that as from Italy. However, I managed to dig up an interesting quote (archive):

Data includes deaths with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis where the cause of death isn't attributed to COVID-19.

And so, it is very likely that - as in Italy - all these old people are simply dying from the diseases they've already had. Comparing with Belarus (June 9 data cause I don't want to redo the calcs):

COVID deaths in Belarus

Can't make this up. 49,453 cases and only 276 deaths gives a death rate of 0.55 percent per coronavirus case. So, only one out of 200 infected people will die from it. I wonder how would the fearmongers squirm out of these damning statistics? They totally kill the "Sweden's lack of lockdown is causing all these deaths" theory. As well as all the models and predictions that have been provided. After all, pretty much every other country has implemented draconian measures to combat COVID-19 - and they still come out much higher than Belarus in the amount of casualties. E.g the UK has 14%, Spain 9.4%, Greece a little over 6%, etc (UPDATE November 2022: these percentages are obviously irrelevant now, they are all much lower [most countries under 2%, and even that is fudged by the fakery from the death section] - just in case someone is scared of those statistics). Funny how the country with the least restrictions also ends up with the smallest death percentage. UPDATE June 2022: I've checked this recently again, and it's still true. The countries with significant restrictions still had higher (but still low, and let's remember the fakery from the Death section) death rates according to stats, while Belarus with none had 0.6%. So the restrictions have been conclusively proven useless in terms of curbing the deaths. Of course, the stat that (again) matters more is the amount of actual cases - I suspect the high death rates are just propaganda claims. Think about it: why would the same virus suddenly kill twenty times more people that have it, just because it's another country? Maybe they get better treatment in certain places, but I doubt Belarus is the king in that department; and anyway, the difference should not be so huge. Or, those countries could simply have more deadly variants of coronavirus - but then, it would be a lie to consider all those together as a single COVID-19 and would also kill the narrative. The simplest and most likely explanation is that Belarus' stats show the maximum true death rate of corona when reported accurately - the other countries are simply faking it (see Italy again). On the other hand - as long as the tests being used have similar accuracy - the amount of cases should go down as restrictions go up. Yet that has been totally reversed in this comparison. This is such a big blow to the mainstream narrative that we could end the report right here. But of course there's much more to say, so let's dig further:

Other fake claims

Okay, so they lied about pretty much everything in regards to the novel coronavirus. But surely, it still exists. Wouldn't it be nice to know how it came about?

COVID was created in a laboratory

For the longest time, I have ignored and / or downplayed this theory for a few reasons. The evidence was not decisive at the beginning and I did not want to make a blunder. Focusing on the virus' origins can also easily be used to distract from the fact that it is still weak and that the restrictions are useless and vaccines harmful. However, enough good evidence came in that the lab origin can't be denied anymore. I must also admit that I have made a mistake in perception here, because if you think about it, everything is downstream from the virus' origins. So the issue is more important than I originally portrayed it.

The lab origin of COVID ties everything together. It explains why the elites knew it was going to be a "coronavirus pandemic" during Event-201. It allowed them to plan everything in advance: all the restrictions, the media attack on alternative treatments, maybe bribing some scientists or threatening some politicians. And of course it gave them an excuse to launch immediate vaccine production, because they needed a virus that would cause some relevant symptoms at least sometimes - which COVID does (even if only in already compromised people). They could not have relied on unpredictable Nature to do what they wanted, at the time they wanted - so they did it themselves. After all, Nature could have created a virus from some completely different family, or one that is so weak that it wouldn't be noticed - which would destroy all their preparations. Now let's check out the evidence for the lab leak theory:

So, the virus was indeed created in a lab. There is no other way to explain all of the above. If even the fact checkers have run away with their tails under their legs, you know something's up (it's the first and last time I've seen something like this). You might be wondering why the mainstream media haven't censored this story. Well, two reasons: first, the evidence was just too strong and you can't bury something like this at that point. Second, the lab leak still helps the elites achieve their goals if they convince you that COVID is a killer. Because, the tougher COVID seems, the more restrictions they have an excuse to implement (and the lab leak does make COVID look tough).

Of course, to attentive readers, none of this should provide a justification for the hysteria that was launched. Remember that we still have an immune system that can kill every single bacteria and virus in existence - including the mighty COVID-19 (archive) or even salmonella (archive). If this wasn't the case - and we required a vaccine for every new pathogen that might appear (and this happens all the time (archive)) - anyone who didn't get it would just die. We have survived on this Earth for millions of years, and for a lot of that time, there was no handwash, antibiotics, masks or stuff like that. Yet we're still here today, because our immune system is very effective at its job. However, certain things (that are - surprise surprise - very common in industrialized societies) can weaken it. These include nutrient deficiencies such as vitamins A, C and D (archive), refined sugar (archive), industrial seed oils (archive) and psychological stress (archive).

What about the no virus theory?

This theory is many decades old, but (for obvious reasons) enjoyed a resurrection during corona, being spread by people like Andrew Kaufman, Samantha Bailey and Thomas Cowan (plus their followers). So, this theory says that anytime someone sees what they think is a "virus", that what they see is actually generated by the cell itself in response to a "stress". What do those stresses consist of? I'll let the supporters themselves speak:

Along the way, Engelbrecht and Köhniein will analyze all possible causes of illness such as pharmaceuticals, lifestyle drugs, pesticides, heavy metals, pollution, stress and processed (and sometimes genetically modified) foods.

Of course all those things do contribute to disease, but the problem is that they do not explain most of what is attributed to viruses. Let's take shitty food, which is the basis for a lot of civilization's disease problems. It takes many years, or more likely decades, to incur a food-related disease problem such as diabetes or heart disease. And they develop slowly then - exactly the opposite of what viruses are alleged to do (sudden appearance and fast disappearance of symptoms). The same logic applies to heavy metals, pollution, stress and the drugs - which people usually deal with for years - so the severity of issues should follow the exposure time, as well. Stress and some drugs can cause sudden symptoms, but then you will know they came from there. Medical drug manuals always list them and well, everyone knows what stress does and it has only a few symptoms; it's insane to now blame everything on it. And the timing would be obvious in both of those cases. It is really bad reasoning to blame an issue that suddenly appeared on something a person has dealt with for years without bad effect.

The blaming of every symptom that shows up on something generic without consideration of the specific scenarios reminds me of the way vaccine lovers blame clear vaccine symptoms on whatever happens to appear in their minds first. Climate change (archive), gas prices (archive), video games (archive) ...everything to exonerate the vaccine. And the no virus theorists do the same to try and make viruses disappear. What do we do with symptoms that are clearly new? Such as the smell or taste loss from COVID - which do exist in chronic disease, too - but then again, they'd be developing slowly then, instead of instantly. And not all of the people that get them have been chronically sick. Some "no virus" supporters tried to blame it on 5G - which is at least an attempt, and the timing would fit. But not every country has 5G (archive), and yet they still suffer from COVID symptoms. What if someone has been healthy until then, and COVID still drops them for two days with symptoms they've never had? But again, the "no virus" theorists never bother coming up with actual explanations, just have a few buzzwords like "toxins" and "pollution" that they can blame everything on. And until this changes, the theory should be dismissed just as its supporters dismiss honesty and reasoning.

Of course, this doesn't mean that symptoms are never unjustly blamed on viruses, too (they clearly often are) - or that the medical industry does not sometimes avoid punishment for releasing poisons into the environment because they have managed to blame everything on a virus (archive). But dismissing the whole field of virology because of those few abuses isn't a good idea. So many things don't make sense without viruses like the thousands of studies that talk about the immune system, or herbs and nutrients killing viruses, or the ocean (archive) containing millions of them in one drop of seawater (the air [archive] contains them, too), or the existence of outbreaks, etc. The "no virus" supporters never provide any adequate explanations for all these things. It seems to me that those people are not really interested in understanding, just contrarianism and poking holes (e.g about isolation procedures) in mainstream theories. Which is fine and can be valuable but it's not enough; at some point you need to start providing real answers for things that happen, e.g people getting sick in the same household at the same time. All provided explanations have been around since forever, so what it is that is suddenly different for the people losing their breaths, etc? Someone once messaged me trying to explain people getting sick with media fearmongering, which is so funny in light of the fact that not everyone watches bullshit media. And have you heard of media fearmongering causing those symptoms during any of the other times media has done so? E.g with climate change, "muslim terrorists" in France a decade ago or so, rising prices, now Putin, and whatever else. It's their bread and butter, yet we don't hear people going mass sick from it. I mean sure, fear can affect the disease response, but it doesn't do what the no virus people think it does - which is magically pull out a bunch of new symptoms out of a hat. Just got to find any way to make viruses disappear, I guess?

This theory also lets elites off the hook when they try to create deadly viruses against humanity in the virus labs (which it cannot even attempt to explain). Since the mainstream narrative for COVID was so seriously flawed from the beginning, the "no virus" theory came in like the superhero and provided a counter-narrative that pretty much required you to believe that nothing is real (like the flat Earth theory). This provided a way for the elites to throw every skeptic of mainstream theories into the "insane" box, keeping people locked inside the mainstream mental prisons forever. Does it not seem like the "no virus" theory was brought back from its grave so that the virus research (archive) continues on? Since if viruses don't exist, there's nothing harmful going on in those biolabs, surely. Another issue with this theory is that it prevents people from finding proper treatments for their ailments. After all, how is a sick person helped by someone telling them that what caused their sickness does not exist, but they can't tell them any replacement except banalities that don't actually explain anything? Leaving them to rot with their sickness, confused and with no treatment in sight.

Do you not see how none of the "pandemic" measures could have worked without an actual virus? You need at least some people having some (new) symptoms somewhere to justify "fighting COVID". How would you accomplish anything with a complete fake? People would eventually figure it out if they saw absolutely no one get sick. The "pandemic" was a triple punch of COVID creation, media embellishment, and finally the implementation of restrictions. In the end, I don't think the "no virus" theory is right and it distracts us from the truth that's behind door three - viruses exist, but they're being portrayed as monsters so that we're scared into submission and accept violating restrictions. When in reality there are simple treatments like nutritious diets and sun exposure that have been completely ignored by the mainstream. Indeed, there is actually no contradiction between germ theory and terrain theory; germs exist and can sometimes cause harmful effects, while the terrain is your body and can be improved by having adequate nutrition, exercise, good mentality, sometimes loading up on herbal medicine, etc. As I said before, anytime someone gets sick, there is an interplay between many factors - outside and inside the body (including the germs in this case). But this has all been forgotten and people being tribal divided themselves into camps, as usual - camps easy to pick off for the elites. Look at how the no virus people compiled a "naughty list" of dissenters against restrictions that still realize viruses exist. Oh yes, that's what's going to help us during the next lockdown or vaccine push.

Do the authorities have our best interests in mind?

First, let me state who do I mean by the authorities. Most importantly, the so-called World Health Organization (archive) which has spread "guidance" over how to handle the fake pandemic (archive) and is the source of most of the recommendations and restrictions which countries over the world have taken up. Also the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (archive), which is just an EU-specific WHO. Then come the governments themselves who chose to implement those measures after all. Nutrition organizations that spread fake info to prevent people from healing themselves. The media that has scared everyone into submission could go in here too. So do they have our best interests in mind? If it wasn't obvious already - fuck no. Let me remind you of when the WHO tried to erase natural immunity from existence:

Comparison of two definitions of natural immunity, before and after COVID, showing the World Health Organization rewriting history

Bet that fills you with confidence, doesn't it? They've also made this malicious claim that is very telling:

Not yet. To date, there is no vaccine and no specific antiviral medicines against COVID-19. However, people, particularly those with serious illness, may need to be hospitalized so that they can receive life-saving treatment for complications.. Most patients recover thanks to such care

Possible vaccines and some specific drug treatments are currently under investigation. They are being tested through clinical trials. WHO is coordinating efforts to develop vaccines and medicines to prevent and treat COVID-19. 

The most effective ways to protect yourself and others against COVID-19 are to:

So they claim say is no cure for COVID-19. Surely, with 7000 experts working on there, they should know a thing or two about the immune system and how it kills microbes all the time (update: some people have claimed that COVID-19 magically bypasses the immune system - here's a direct disproof (archive)). And, there are things we can do to support it (which actually have evidence for their effectiveness) that the WHO and other pseudo-authorities completely fail to mention. On the other hand, they recommend measures that are at best unproven and at worst harmful:

The authorities' useless coronavirus response

Why COVID amnesty is a really bad idea

So, late October, Emily Oster (archive) - a journalist for The Atlantic - wrote an article (archive) calling for an "amnesty" for the COVID criminals that have been destroying the world for almost 3 years now. It uses the standard we just didn't know argument to forgive and forget the criminals:

Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.
But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.

And surely, we did not know some things - but we did know a lot. And that "a lot" exposes the malicious intent behind the COVID response. Let's give some examples:

But of course, Emily considers none of this, but only the few small points where the we just didn't know argument appears to fit. I am not sure if she is a malicious actor, since she did speak out against some of the restrictions. But that's all for nothing if you don't have the full picture. She still shills for the vaccines, thinking it matters which type of poison you get:

When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.

Why not mention the fact that the Pfizer trial was a total sham on purpose? Again, the COVID vaccines can only seem like a good idea to someone that hasn't read a lot. Any other drug would have been taken off the market long ago with so much damage done. That the vaccines still remain, shows malice on part of the elites.

Frankly, this article makes me really angry, because it is a totally indefensible attempt to save the elites from consequences. We need to expect some quality from our decision makers, just like we expect it from the bridge builders. If a bridge builder kept creating ones that fell apart when a few people walked on them, they'd be out of job instantly. But the people currently at the top did not suffer the slightest inconvenience - or even got rewarded. Such as the executives of the vaccine companies, or the politicians who installed restrictions, or even the hospitals who got paid for putting patients on the harmful ventilators. If a person can just do whatever they want once they get a high position, we are totally fucked! And the COVID situation is the perfect opportunity to fix that, but no one cares. Exactly because articles like Emily's muddy the waters. It seems that some people just cannot accept that the rulers of this world could be so extremely evil, so they make up nonsensical stuff about their lack of knowledge. But just because most prefer their comfortable life of walking in the dark, doesn't mean we have to give up doing what's right. Force the ruling elites to admit everything shown in this report live on TV, then send them to work in a coal mine - and replace them with people who are actually not psychopaths.

But to be honest, this problem has been going on for a long time now. Our society is designed around hierarchy, where the higher up can do whatever they want to and the people under them have to take it - with no ability to affect it, usually. That's the primary thing that has to change for anything to get better, IMO. Without pressure from your underlings, why even think about the effects of your decisions? Why even care? You do your tasks, and you go home with money that will put food on the table. This applies everywhere, and gets off the hook nurses that inject the COVID poisons, police that abuses a homeless person, and really anyone that hurts someone in whatever way. There is a fundamental problem here that most people don't appear to be seeing. What I'm getting at is: plebs have to stand up sometime if they see a higher-up doing something harmful.

Pandemic-related deaths

Many dissidents (or would-be ones) died (usually in suspicious circumstances) during the course of the "pandemic" or right before it. Let us explore their untimely demises:

Kary Mullis

Kary Mullis - as mentioned before - invented the PCR test (archive). He was also clear on the fact that it cannot be used to diagnose disease (archive) - and it was used exactly for that during the "pandemic". He had a history of criticizing various mainstream narratives - such as the ones about climate change or HIV / AIDS (archive) - and surely would not have let slide the COVID one, especially when the misuse of his invention was at the center of it. Unfortunately, he won't get to say anything as he died from pneumonia (archive) in August 2019, right before the "pandemic" started. The fearmongers could not have pushed the "pandemic" through if Kary was alive when it began. Therefore he had to be eliminated, and pneumonia can be induced by drugs.

Jovenel Moïse

The president of Haiti, who refused the donation (archive) of 756 000 vials of AstraZeneca's COVID non-vaccine in April 2021, and was killed 3 months later (archive):

“An unidentified group of individuals, some of whom were speaking in Spanish, attacked the private residence of the President of the Republic and mortally wounded him,”

A week after the killing, his country received (archive) a "gift" of 500 000 vials of the poison. This situation is unique in that we have clear proof that he was actually murdered. Totally unrelated to his rejection of the vaccines though, I'm sure.

John Magufuli

Tanzania's president, who has exposed PCR tests (archive) as unreliable:

The president said he had instructed Tanzanian security forces to check the quality of the kits. They had randomly obtained several non-human samples, including from a pawpaw, a goat and a sheep, but had assigned them human names and ages.
Samples from the pawpaw and the goat tested positive for COVID-19, the president said, adding this meant it was likely that some people were being tested positive when in fact they were not infected by the coronavirus.

He did not like (archive) lockdowns or vaccines:

Magufuli in a speech Wednesday scorned the idea of a lockdown to prevent the coronavirus from spreading and poured doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines.

He went missing (archive) on February 27, 2021:

Magufuli, a 61-year-old leader nicknamed "The Bulldozer," was last seen in public on Feb. 27 looking his normal self as he swore in a new chief secretary at State House in Tanzania's commercial capital Dar es Salaam.

He, then, died (archive) on March 17:

“Dear Tanzanians, it is sad to announce that today 17 March 2021 around 6 p.m. we lost our brave leader, President John Magufuli who died from heart disease at Mzena hospital in Dar es Salaam where he was getting treatment," the vice president said on state broadcaster TBC.

This was just a little over a month after The Guardian called (archive) to rein in the president. But remember that he has gone missing (likely captured) much earlier - less than 3 weeks after the unfortunate article.

The new president predictably did a 180 (archive) in terms of the COVID response:

On April 6, President Samia announced the formation of the committee with a strong emphasis on fighting the pandemic through scientific methods.
President Samia has always stressing on the need to wear face masks in all public gatherings.

She - of course - took up the vaccines, as well:

After she received a report from the Committee among the major changes announced include granting permission to embassies and international institutions in Tanzania to import Covid-19 vaccines for their people and employees.

Pierre Nkurunziza

Burundi's president died (archive) from a heart attack on June 8, 2020:

Mr. Nkurunziza, 55, had shown no sign of illness until he was admitted to hospital in the town of Karuzi on Saturday. After appearing to recover on Sunday, his health worsened “to very great surprise” on Monday and he could not be revived, despite several hours of effort, a government statement said.

Recovering, then suddenly getting worse and dying. Nothing suspicious here /s. He didn't care to have any kind of COVID restrictions:

Burundi was one of the few countries worldwide that refused to ban sports events or take other restrictive measures. It also allowed mass campaign rallies of tens of thousands of people during the election campaign last month. Face masks were rarely seen.

And kicked out "experts" from the WHO:

Four experts from the World Health Organization, who had reportedly questioned the government’s response to the pandemic, were expelled from Burundi last month.

Not even a month later, the new president did a 180 (archive) about COVID (of course):

While swearing in his new cabinet on 30 June, President Ndayishimiye declared the pandemic would be “the biggest enemy of Burundians.”

Funnily enough, Burundi still has only 38 COVID deaths (archive) (December 2022). Truly the biggest enemy, this COVID. Despite the extremely low COVID death rate in Burundi, Western media jumped (archive) to claim that Nkurunziza was one of the few people to have died from COVID (it would mean he was literally the first COVID death there - how likely is that?!).

Andry Rajoelina (attempted assassination)

6 people (including 3 foreigners) tried to kill (archive) Madagascar's president on July 23, 2021 - but failed. In April 2020, he launched (archive) a herbal remedy for COVID - which the WHO has shat on (archive):

In response to the launch of Covid-Organics, the WHO said, in a statement sent to the BBC, that the global organisation did not recommend "self-medication with any medicines... as a prevention or cure for Covid-19".

As you can see, the WHO hates the idea of being your own doctor - you just got to take the jab and stay home. This could provide context for why Andry was targeted later. And hey, guess which (archive) remedy turned out better?

Several extracts as well as Covid-Organics inhibited SARS-CoV-2 and FCoV infection at concentrations that did not affect cell viability.

Another study (archive):

Hot-water leaf extracts based on artemisinin, total flavonoids, or dry leaf mass showed antiviral activity with IC50 values of 0.1-8.7 μM, 0.01-0.14 μg, and 23.4-57.4 μg, respectively.

Even if you assumed Covid-Organics does nothing (which is contradicted by the above studies), it is still better than the WHO's measures which are actually negative - while the herbal remedy isn't going to hurt you. Maybe that's why Rajoelina received an assassination attempt - he dared to stick his head out, and try to do something on his own, instead of bowing down to his NWO masters.


And so, we have 3 cases (plus one almost-case) of presi