We can show that lockdowns, masks, anti-viral drugs and vaccines can never be justified.
This is not of interest to many who still refuse to look at the evidence for 'viruses' and 'infectious' diseases.
There is lots of pressure for team #novirus to “shut up”. It’s coming from the ‘health freedom movement’ not the narrative.
The ‘health freedom movement’ or parts of it, must be therefore have financial or other interests in maintaining the model that ill health is caused by the lack of the appropriate pharmaceutical product.
🐒
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."
Well, quite a number of *experts* write Substacks.
So what else would one expect?