Here's my initial offerings on a piece I am writing about "early treatment."
Before posting that I must add that it seems as others have noted that not only have these people surfaced from out of nowhere (that's fine), and not only do they not know the history of these scams AIDS/HIV-Avian Flu- Zika, MERS, SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola etc. and the players involved (that's fine) but they have little interest in educating themsleves on any of this and connecting the dots (that's not okay).
They think, or want others to people to believe and/or are purposefully misleading people, that "Covid" is some stand alone operation and simply popped out of nowhere as a "novel disease." And with that fictional belief how many esoteric theories have we witnessed to explain "Covid" over the past three years?
"Early Treatment"
The fabrication of a controversy over "early treatments" from the start of the operation is intended to invent parallel narratives and stop all other narratives from getting out of the gate.
Installing the controversy on how to "treat" this alleged "new disease" served to concretize the narrative that a "novel disease" existed and that the "novel pathogen" which caused this disease was in fact a real problem requiring political and medical measures rather than an invented control narrative.
This phony world of Potemkin logic assured that no one would bother to check the "truth of the fact"- had a new disease in fact appeared and was there proof of this novel pathogen?
This leads us to two competing thesis:
1) A serious new disease has arrived against which we have no medical defense until the savior vaccine arrives;
2) A serious new disease has arrived that one could, and could have, treat(ed) were it not for the underhanded efforts by the authorities who brought us thesis #1.
That thesis #2 has been seized upon and catapulted by individuals who are then portrayed as "rogue anti-establishment doctors" and administrative types who quickly become the face of the "health freedom movement" seems to be more than an unlikely coincidence.
This dynamic serves to disallow and/or marginalize alternative theories and mutes the abundant evidence that there was in fact no new pathogen of any sort.
A quote:
It was a question of making the idea of the imaginary disease exist even in the mind of the recalcitrant portion of the population, by providing them with the protest rattles that they could wave at their leisure - the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of ivermectin, the ineffectiveness of masks, the ineffectiveness of " vaccines."
We thus showed that we were treating the imaginary disease with exactly the same method as that which had made it possible to establish its existence, making the posthumous pride of Monsieur de Münchhausen.to have been able to inspire so much beautiful science.
The accepted medical science of "early treatments" of a non-existent disease rests on the same foundation as the invention of this non-existent disease. Therefore it too is invalid.
The authors of the "official" government narrative- thesis #1- and those of the alternative "health freedom" narrative- thesis #2- are, in the end, likely to become "strange bedfellows" and not real adversaries under these conditions, as both validate the imaginary disease by different means.
Thus it is hard to imagine that we arrive at a place much different, if these are to be the "accepted" and "hotly contested" narratives, regardless of which of the 2 theses "wins the day."
As I read the portion about “early treatment” I thought back to the AIDS hoax, and how Fauci and Wellcome played the fear-stricken gay community. Believing that a treatment (AZT) existed, they protested and clamored to get it. And of course when they got it that’s when people started dying in droves.
Of course, both narratives are fake. Besides, my impression is that the fakes are receiving "hundreds/thousands of paid subscribers" from the black budget. After all, it's only the taxpayer's money.
The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It was originally published in February 2020, in the very early days of the “pandemic,” and it’s latest revision was published in July 2021 (rev: 07, 7/21).
Buried deep in the document, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [SARS-CoV-2] are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…” (document page 40, pdf page 41)
The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [virus] are currently available…”
I must not be reading what others are reading. Most people who didn't follow the safe and effective narrative of fear do want resolution and answers and accountability. Anyone who doesn't either has a hidden interest (so I agree here) or is someone with that annoying habit of sweeping unpleasantness under the rug. Some people don't want difficult conversations.
We should Double down by talking about nanotechnology (synbio) since this is what it is all about anyway and stop bothering with fake viruses. We are solidly in the nano era now. Everything else pales in comparison!
Here's my initial offerings on a piece I am writing about "early treatment."
Before posting that I must add that it seems as others have noted that not only have these people surfaced from out of nowhere (that's fine), and not only do they not know the history of these scams AIDS/HIV-Avian Flu- Zika, MERS, SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola etc. and the players involved (that's fine) but they have little interest in educating themsleves on any of this and connecting the dots (that's not okay).
They think, or want others to people to believe and/or are purposefully misleading people, that "Covid" is some stand alone operation and simply popped out of nowhere as a "novel disease." And with that fictional belief how many esoteric theories have we witnessed to explain "Covid" over the past three years?
"Early Treatment"
The fabrication of a controversy over "early treatments" from the start of the operation is intended to invent parallel narratives and stop all other narratives from getting out of the gate.
Installing the controversy on how to "treat" this alleged "new disease" served to concretize the narrative that a "novel disease" existed and that the "novel pathogen" which caused this disease was in fact a real problem requiring political and medical measures rather than an invented control narrative.
This phony world of Potemkin logic assured that no one would bother to check the "truth of the fact"- had a new disease in fact appeared and was there proof of this novel pathogen?
This leads us to two competing thesis:
1) A serious new disease has arrived against which we have no medical defense until the savior vaccine arrives;
2) A serious new disease has arrived that one could, and could have, treat(ed) were it not for the underhanded efforts by the authorities who brought us thesis #1.
That thesis #2 has been seized upon and catapulted by individuals who are then portrayed as "rogue anti-establishment doctors" and administrative types who quickly become the face of the "health freedom movement" seems to be more than an unlikely coincidence.
This dynamic serves to disallow and/or marginalize alternative theories and mutes the abundant evidence that there was in fact no new pathogen of any sort.
A quote:
It was a question of making the idea of the imaginary disease exist even in the mind of the recalcitrant portion of the population, by providing them with the protest rattles that they could wave at their leisure - the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of ivermectin, the ineffectiveness of masks, the ineffectiveness of " vaccines."
We thus showed that we were treating the imaginary disease with exactly the same method as that which had made it possible to establish its existence, making the posthumous pride of Monsieur de Münchhausen.to have been able to inspire so much beautiful science.
The accepted medical science of "early treatments" of a non-existent disease rests on the same foundation as the invention of this non-existent disease. Therefore it too is invalid.
The authors of the "official" government narrative- thesis #1- and those of the alternative "health freedom" narrative- thesis #2- are, in the end, likely to become "strange bedfellows" and not real adversaries under these conditions, as both validate the imaginary disease by different means.
Thus it is hard to imagine that we arrive at a place much different, if these are to be the "accepted" and "hotly contested" narratives, regardless of which of the 2 theses "wins the day."
Excellent summary beautifully put.
As I read the portion about “early treatment” I thought back to the AIDS hoax, and how Fauci and Wellcome played the fear-stricken gay community. Believing that a treatment (AZT) existed, they protested and clamored to get it. And of course when they got it that’s when people started dying in droves.
Yes.
Well, quite a number of *experts* write Substacks.
So what else would one expect?
Yes, it almost seems like substack actively supports the lab leak/safe vaccine narrative
Of course, both narratives are fake. Besides, my impression is that the fakes are receiving "hundreds/thousands of paid subscribers" from the black budget. After all, it's only the taxpayer's money.
These experts on substack, with lots of subscribers, do seem to pop up out of nowhere
AI-generated news, opposition, and even interviews abound on Substack, but they are everywhere:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/is-everything-fake
The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It was originally published in February 2020, in the very early days of the “pandemic,” and it’s latest revision was published in July 2021 (rev: 07, 7/21).
Buried deep in the document, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [SARS-CoV-2] are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…” (document page 40, pdf page 41)
The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [virus] are currently available…”
- Jon Rappoport
I must not be reading what others are reading. Most people who didn't follow the safe and effective narrative of fear do want resolution and answers and accountability. Anyone who doesn't either has a hidden interest (so I agree here) or is someone with that annoying habit of sweeping unpleasantness under the rug. Some people don't want difficult conversations.
Too true- most people just want to eat their cheesecake and watch price is right
We should Double down by talking about nanotechnology (synbio) since this is what it is all about anyway and stop bothering with fake viruses. We are solidly in the nano era now. Everything else pales in comparison!