Oh jeez, thanks for pointing that out! It appeared on my feed on Sunday among all of the other "cases rising" stories, so I took it to be a recent one. MSN doesn't necessarily tell you when the actual article was published, and so this makes me curious if there was some need to get this article circulating again just in time for school openings and increasing cases.
The contradiction still applies, as the end remarks go against the entire setup of the article.
I believe that to be true (MIS-C can be triggered by other viruses). Unfortunately, one thing we may be dealing with in the future is the fact that we will have an imbalance in the literature. We're already witnessing this now with Long COVID where a "novel" pathogen has essentially tainted any SARS-COV2 findings as now it leads people to believe that these factors are associated specifically with SARS-COV2 when it's more that scientists probably just weren't looking for these things prior to the pandemic, and so now we have all of this information on one virus with a dearth of information for other viruses, creating an illusion that everything we find with SARS-COV2 only occurs with SARS-COV2.
I'd be all for the Pi variant so long as it comes with a side of ice cream!
Thanks for writing about this, I noticed it too when a few substacks had headlines - "it's starting again, masks are back!!! 😫. I looked to see what this is based on, and it was based on one university in the United states requiring masks. 🙄. Even if this does happen, it would be better to spread something positive, like "we all have the strength to stand in our principles and not wear masks this fall and winter!". 💪🏽🥳
Or post things that don't have anything to do with COVID! I'm kind of tired of any sort of fear porn I see on Notes, and it's why I try to avoid it. It's also a bit of disheartening to see which articles gain traction and which ones don't. But every now and then you get a random comment from someone about something they made or something they did that wasn't COVID related, and it reminds you that there are other things out there going on!
In that regard I'll be posting Halloween stuff soon (soon being used very broadly)! 😉
"...if the media were to make such an argument against Berberine, and to supposedly “fact check” social media claims you would expect them to at least do necessary research and assess these claims."
I wouldn't expect that because that's not what they are up to now or have been up to in the past. The more one knows about the origin and history of the media as they now exist, the more sense it makes that they do what they do. But the truth is perhaps too terrible to behold.
Fine, so people can believe what they want to if the truth is too terrible. But being able to "move on" has much more to do with what is than what people want to believe.
We'll see what happens. I have a sense of where we are going, shaped in part by history repeating itself, and I don't like it. I could easily be wrong, and that would be OK. But where others see progress being made against evil, I see confusion of effect with cause, which is not progress. In particular, removing evil leaders/rulers never removes the underlying problem -- they grow back. To see them as cause rather than effect is, I believe, to fail to see what is going on. The root problem is personal, and quite uncomfortable to contemplate.
I would like to be wrong, but until that is determined I see what I see, and it isn't nice. Again, we'll see.
The same group that want us to be concerned about variants are the same fine folks that have been lying to us continuously. I do not believe a word they say.
Whether the strain is "Arcturus", "Eris", or "Pirola", all strains of SARS-COV-2 are still "just the flu".
SARS-CoV-2 infection produces "flu like" symptoms, which is why it and the 6 other forms of coronavirus which infect humans produce "Influenza Like Illness".
Several viruses, including HHVs, also have so-called "flu-like illnesses" associated with them as well. The fact is that a lot of these symptoms are just overly broad which are just coughs, fevers, and muscle aches, which in reality many things can cause, not just viruses.
I think this is part of the issue in language and how health organizations disseminate information. It would be more fitting to refer to it as "typical respiratory symptoms/illnesses" rather than referring to a specific virus, which now leads people to believe it was the flu.
Which is one reason I am always cognizant that we are talking about "infectious respiratory pathogens" when we are discussion whether COVID is or is not "the flu". That takes off the table pathogens such as West Nile virus (mosquito-borne) as well as HHVs and even HIV.
And it is why the CDC's own syndromic surveillance efforts have been for at least the past 10 years focused on "Influenza Like Illnesses"--it's understood that "the flu" is not and never has been a single virus or even family of viruses.
One of the more damning bits of propagandistic "amnesia" that occurred when SARS-CoV-2 emerged was that influenza virus itself rarely accounted for more than 20% of symptomatic ILI cases. The vast majority of ILI cases has always been a virus OTHER than influenza virus--and yet when COVID emerged, suddenly "the flu" meant just influenza virus, and SARS-CoV-2 was something novel and unknown and scary dangerous--when it was novel but yet not entirely unknown.
True, my comment is sort of that we tend to ascribe things certain characteristics based on how we categorize them, so with many people they may incorrectly assume that "flu-like illness" will mean the flu when it just refers to a host of symptoms that overlap with many viruses, but with people more commonly being aware of the flu. It's just interesting to see this now being propped up by some people as a way of saying SARS-COV2 never existed.
What we’re dealing with now is the flu. Initially I think we were dealing with a strategically placed chimera that has long since fizzled out but the spirit of it was kept going via feeding neuroticism through misdirected PCR testing, constant blathering about case counts, fraudulent record keeping, and stupendously ignorant protocols from both government and healthcare.
Could you explain what you mean by misdirected PCR testing? I conducted PCR testing for SARS-COV2. One of the problems I found was that a lot of people generally fall onto the "high cycle threshold" argument which works for some cases, but not all of them. There were many cases in which PCR cycles were in the singles or teens, but again most people aren't aware of this because they fall back onto the narratives that other people prop up.
It doesn't mean that the incessant degree of PCR testing was warranted, but that there's more to the PCR story than people have reported.
The 40-cycle threshold was identified by the New York Times in late 2020 as making as many as 90% of "positive" PCR tests potentially false positives. And even Anthony Fauci acknowledged (as Rochelle Walensky did later on) at >34ct one was identifying viral fragments and/or "dead nucleotides". The CDC itself stopped sequencing samples where the ct was above 28, and the reason stated on the CDC website was that live virus could not be cultured from such samples.
The high cycle threshold would almost certainly have been less of a problem had the historical protocol for diagnostic testing (and the official WHO definition of a "case") had been retained--i.e., test when one presents with symptoms, and case is positive test plus symptoms. Mass testing of asymptomatic individuals at a high cycle threshold meant that people who had been exposed without developing an active infection or those who had a mild infection and recently recovered were classified as positive "cases", when historically they never would have been tested in the first place.
The only "good" to come out of the mass testing is that we got epidemiological proof of the nature of COVID spread, which in turn demonstrated the complete failure of the mRNA inoculations to mitigate the spread of the virus. Even at a 90% false positive rate, the trends in the data remain the same, but the mass testing meant that the one thing the sample size could never be was too small!
I recall that statement, but I was curious and went back and looked, and the context was that over 90% of the people who had a ct count of around 40 would have likely been considered false positives if the ct count was reduced to 30:
"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."
It's always the context of what cycle count someone has that is needed. I find that when PCR is brought up it is done with "the ct cutoff was too high" as if to assume that all PCR tests were at the cutoff, and that would be an issue in interpreting the data when that's clearly not the case for many people.
I certainly saw some contemptuous cases in which a positive test was "forced" by repeat testing, and at the end of the day the massive testing was all done because of government funding. There's a lot of stories people may have of working in parking lot labs which seemed to have propped up just as quickly as the supposed hospitals did in China.
The most egregious flaw in much of the PCR testing that was done was that the reporting was simply "positive" or "negative". Cycle counts were rarely included. And certainly when looking at the aggregate numbers for case counts the cycle thresholds of PCR tests were simply ignored.
It was one of many reporting defects that gave an inaccurate picture of the severity of the disease--alongside the fact that as many as half of "COVID patients" in hospital were there for something other than COVID and just happened to come up positive on a PCR test.
Ultimately, the significance of the 90% false positive figure is that it underscores just how screwed up the COVID data is. Mass testing produced mostly mass confusion.
That's true, I don't believe we ever gave cycle counts out even though we were aware of them. It was just easier to report if people were "negative" or "positive". There's plenty of problems with how everything was tracked to the extent that a lot of the data that we have collected is unfortunately meaningless.
Over-cycling is a contentious topic. Misdirected means the test which it’s inventor claimed was never designed to be a definitive diagnostic tool (in and of itself means it’s being misused) is “primed” to find only what they want to find. Does anyone really believe masking and distancing ended the flu? You don’t find what you’re not looking for.
I always took Mullis' comments to suggest that PCR itself was never a good indicator of infection, but it seems like people may have extrapolated more from his argument. I believe it was the norm that one would see a physician, get examined for symptoms, and may come out with a diagnosis for some viral infection, in which case either a PCR test or a culture would then confirm. And so PCR may be a confirmatory mechanism, but by itself doesn't provide an actual measure of a case, hence why our asymptomatic numbers are likely to have been grossly overreported.
Keep in mind that most PCR tests are likely to screen for various viruses, with SARS-COV2 we only tested for SARS-COV2, meaning that any other possibility would not be screened for.
“ with SARS-COV2 we only tested for SARS-COV2, meaning that any other possibility would not be screened for.”
That is the misdirection I was speaking of. How many false positives precluded the necessity to test for anything else? The almost complete “disappearance” of Bronchitis, Influenza, etc., is so suspect as to be absurd. You don’t find what you’re not looking for.
I understand that. It's quite apparent that nothing really disappeared if you don't look for it. There's plenty of problems with how everything surrounding COVID went down.
Setting aside for the moment questions of lab manufacture or just lab origin, as well as accidental vs deliberate release, SARS-CoV-2 has never measured up to its pandemic billing. Even as early as February of 2020, the cases and hospitalizations just never materialized at the projected scale.
I agree, sort of. I’m 66 years old. Over my lifetime I’ve experienced various viral illnesses. Head and chest colds, sinus infection, mono, bronchitis, hand-foot-mouth, influenza, and none presented symptoms as weird as covid. Since when does the flu involve the sympathetic nervous system? Acute tachycardia, long-term total loss olfactory function, non-obstructive breathing insufficiency resulting in asymptomatic hypoxia, chronic insomnia… in addition to extreme inflammation of endothelial linings with little to no congestion. Nope. There’s no way this came from nature. It felt more like being poisoned by a biological nerve agent. There’s no flu that presents like this. That said, I do believe it was a hit and run. They couldn’t keep it up. It ran its course in short order so they spun up the fear factor to keep it going. Hospitals killed more people than covid. Remdesivir while banning/limiting monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. As far as variants are concerned, I don’t believe there are any variants. Or at least any to worry about. Why should I believe habitual liars? The plandemic was a military operation that forwarded a globalist agenda, made the rich fabulously wealthier, and politicians vastly more powerful. All at our expense. The entire event was planned.
Could it have been deliberately released? Absolutely.
While the extant evidence is not 100% conclusive, some of it is compelling and we cannot rule out or even consider as improbable the notion of SARS-CoV-2 as a bioweapon that was intentionally released.
Regardless of its origin, SARS-CoV-2 is first and foremost a coronavirus--one of now seven coronavirus strains capable of infecting humans. They join a myriad of rhinovirus strains, adenovirus strains, as well as influenza virus strains in causing what is generically termed Influenza Like Illness. There are I believe some 200 discrete viral strains (not variants and subvariants) associated with Influenza Like Illness.
The thing to remember is that ILI can and does occasionally present unusual symptoms. There has even been a "long influenza" phenomenon which has gone unremarked for decades until after "long COVID" became a buzzword. Unusual symptomology merely proves the pathogen was or is a novel exhibitor of Influenza Like Illness.
Additionally, even "normal" seasonal waves of ILI are credited with tens of thousands of deaths in the US, and hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide. Not every case of "the flu" is mild, nor should we ever presume it to be so. Flu kills, and does so in droves every year.
HOWEVER
The viral strains which produce Influenza Like Illness are all infectious respiratory pathogens. They almost all spread via airborne aerosols. They all mutate fairly rapidly relative to other viruses such as measles, varicella, and orthopox viruses.
From time to time, a strain emerges (or re-emerges) that represents a significant deviation from the strains the human immune system already "knows". That's how you get the Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918-1919. That's how you get the Russian Flu pandemic of 1889-1890. The 1977 Russian flu epidemic was the result of an accidental lab release of a 1950s-era strain of influenza that had been in cold storage for two decades, and so became once again a "novel" pathogen when it re-emerged.
The 1889 Russian Flu outbreak resulted in some 1 million deaths. The Spanish Flu outbreak resulted in at least 17 million deaths. The 1977 Russian Flu outbreak resulted in approximately 700,000 deaths. Yet they were all "just the flu".
Spanish Influenza has been identified as a variant of H1N1 Influenza A. The 1889 Russian flu has been theorized as a variant of coronavirus OC43. Both of these viral strains are in circulation today, but have never exhibited the virulence of 1889 or 1918.
Was SARS-CoV-2 manufactured in a lab? There is a compelling body of evidence to suggest that it did. It is virtually certain that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab in some fashion, either as an accidental byproduct of an experiment gone wrong or a deliberate and wonton release. Even if it were synthesized in a lab, it is still an infectious respiratory pathogen that produces Influeznza Like Illness--and that means it is still "just the flu".
Which is also why we have seen the attenuation we have seen since 2020. As people's immune systems become more accustomed to dealing with that particular pathogen, its virulence has largely declined. Such is the nature of infectious respiratory pathogens.
Was the outbreak planned? That is possible. Yet if it was planned, it was still tripped up by the nature of infectious respiratory pathogens--in particular their tendency to attenuate in virulence over time, as the human immune system becomes more familiar with the virus. Mother Nature always wins.
Which is why, regardless of how severe or seemingly novel any person's particular symptoms might have been with COVID, yeah, it has always been "just the flu".
That seems to be the case for many places, although water testing is a rather poor measure. It's kind of like the candle reviews where people started commenting that they couldn't smell anything. By the time you see those reviews it's likely that the variant has been circulating for quite some time, and so water testing is likely to lag behind by a good deal.
It makes sense. Waste water is likely to have a serious dilution effect. So maybe cases are rising, but overall the concern is whether we should go back to our old problematic ways, and it seems most people would rather not be invested in all of the fear anymore.
The MIS-C article is from 2021, just fyi. My son's friend got it from the flu about 5 years ago; I think any viral illness can trigger it.
I personally can't wait for the tasty Pi variant!
Oh jeez, thanks for pointing that out! It appeared on my feed on Sunday among all of the other "cases rising" stories, so I took it to be a recent one. MSN doesn't necessarily tell you when the actual article was published, and so this makes me curious if there was some need to get this article circulating again just in time for school openings and increasing cases.
The contradiction still applies, as the end remarks go against the entire setup of the article.
I believe that to be true (MIS-C can be triggered by other viruses). Unfortunately, one thing we may be dealing with in the future is the fact that we will have an imbalance in the literature. We're already witnessing this now with Long COVID where a "novel" pathogen has essentially tainted any SARS-COV2 findings as now it leads people to believe that these factors are associated specifically with SARS-COV2 when it's more that scientists probably just weren't looking for these things prior to the pandemic, and so now we have all of this information on one virus with a dearth of information for other viruses, creating an illusion that everything we find with SARS-COV2 only occurs with SARS-COV2.
I'd be all for the Pi variant so long as it comes with a side of ice cream!
Thanks for writing about this, I noticed it too when a few substacks had headlines - "it's starting again, masks are back!!! 😫. I looked to see what this is based on, and it was based on one university in the United states requiring masks. 🙄. Even if this does happen, it would be better to spread something positive, like "we all have the strength to stand in our principles and not wear masks this fall and winter!". 💪🏽🥳
Or post things that don't have anything to do with COVID! I'm kind of tired of any sort of fear porn I see on Notes, and it's why I try to avoid it. It's also a bit of disheartening to see which articles gain traction and which ones don't. But every now and then you get a random comment from someone about something they made or something they did that wasn't COVID related, and it reminds you that there are other things out there going on!
In that regard I'll be posting Halloween stuff soon (soon being used very broadly)! 😉
"...if the media were to make such an argument against Berberine, and to supposedly “fact check” social media claims you would expect them to at least do necessary research and assess these claims."
I wouldn't expect that because that's not what they are up to now or have been up to in the past. The more one knows about the origin and history of the media as they now exist, the more sense it makes that they do what they do. But the truth is perhaps too terrible to behold.
Fine, so people can believe what they want to if the truth is too terrible. But being able to "move on" has much more to do with what is than what people want to believe.
We'll see what happens. I have a sense of where we are going, shaped in part by history repeating itself, and I don't like it. I could easily be wrong, and that would be OK. But where others see progress being made against evil, I see confusion of effect with cause, which is not progress. In particular, removing evil leaders/rulers never removes the underlying problem -- they grow back. To see them as cause rather than effect is, I believe, to fail to see what is going on. The root problem is personal, and quite uncomfortable to contemplate.
I would like to be wrong, but until that is determined I see what I see, and it isn't nice. Again, we'll see.
The same group that want us to be concerned about variants are the same fine folks that have been lying to us continuously. I do not believe a word they say.
Whether the strain is "Arcturus", "Eris", or "Pirola", all strains of SARS-COV-2 are still "just the flu".
SARS-CoV-2 infection produces "flu like" symptoms, which is why it and the 6 other forms of coronavirus which infect humans produce "Influenza Like Illness".
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/covid-comeback-the-arcturus-strain
Contrary to the fear porn in the corporate media, COVID has ALWAYS been "just the flu".
Several viruses, including HHVs, also have so-called "flu-like illnesses" associated with them as well. The fact is that a lot of these symptoms are just overly broad which are just coughs, fevers, and muscle aches, which in reality many things can cause, not just viruses.
I think this is part of the issue in language and how health organizations disseminate information. It would be more fitting to refer to it as "typical respiratory symptoms/illnesses" rather than referring to a specific virus, which now leads people to believe it was the flu.
Which is one reason I am always cognizant that we are talking about "infectious respiratory pathogens" when we are discussion whether COVID is or is not "the flu". That takes off the table pathogens such as West Nile virus (mosquito-borne) as well as HHVs and even HIV.
And it is why the CDC's own syndromic surveillance efforts have been for at least the past 10 years focused on "Influenza Like Illnesses"--it's understood that "the flu" is not and never has been a single virus or even family of viruses.
One of the more damning bits of propagandistic "amnesia" that occurred when SARS-CoV-2 emerged was that influenza virus itself rarely accounted for more than 20% of symptomatic ILI cases. The vast majority of ILI cases has always been a virus OTHER than influenza virus--and yet when COVID emerged, suddenly "the flu" meant just influenza virus, and SARS-CoV-2 was something novel and unknown and scary dangerous--when it was novel but yet not entirely unknown.
True, my comment is sort of that we tend to ascribe things certain characteristics based on how we categorize them, so with many people they may incorrectly assume that "flu-like illness" will mean the flu when it just refers to a host of symptoms that overlap with many viruses, but with people more commonly being aware of the flu. It's just interesting to see this now being propped up by some people as a way of saying SARS-COV2 never existed.
SARS-CoV-2 exists. Whether we call it COVID or "the flu" the disease brought on by infection with SARS-CoV-2 exists.
The "pandemic" of COVID that has made the world mad these past few years....no, that really didn't exist.
What we’re dealing with now is the flu. Initially I think we were dealing with a strategically placed chimera that has long since fizzled out but the spirit of it was kept going via feeding neuroticism through misdirected PCR testing, constant blathering about case counts, fraudulent record keeping, and stupendously ignorant protocols from both government and healthcare.
Could you explain what you mean by misdirected PCR testing? I conducted PCR testing for SARS-COV2. One of the problems I found was that a lot of people generally fall onto the "high cycle threshold" argument which works for some cases, but not all of them. There were many cases in which PCR cycles were in the singles or teens, but again most people aren't aware of this because they fall back onto the narratives that other people prop up.
It doesn't mean that the incessant degree of PCR testing was warranted, but that there's more to the PCR story than people have reported.
The 40-cycle threshold was identified by the New York Times in late 2020 as making as many as 90% of "positive" PCR tests potentially false positives. And even Anthony Fauci acknowledged (as Rochelle Walensky did later on) at >34ct one was identifying viral fragments and/or "dead nucleotides". The CDC itself stopped sequencing samples where the ct was above 28, and the reason stated on the CDC website was that live virus could not be cultured from such samples.
The high cycle threshold would almost certainly have been less of a problem had the historical protocol for diagnostic testing (and the official WHO definition of a "case") had been retained--i.e., test when one presents with symptoms, and case is positive test plus symptoms. Mass testing of asymptomatic individuals at a high cycle threshold meant that people who had been exposed without developing an active infection or those who had a mild infection and recently recovered were classified as positive "cases", when historically they never would have been tested in the first place.
The only "good" to come out of the mass testing is that we got epidemiological proof of the nature of COVID spread, which in turn demonstrated the complete failure of the mRNA inoculations to mitigate the spread of the virus. Even at a 90% false positive rate, the trends in the data remain the same, but the mass testing meant that the one thing the sample size could never be was too small!
I recall that statement, but I was curious and went back and looked, and the context was that over 90% of the people who had a ct count of around 40 would have likely been considered false positives if the ct count was reduced to 30:
"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said."
It's always the context of what cycle count someone has that is needed. I find that when PCR is brought up it is done with "the ct cutoff was too high" as if to assume that all PCR tests were at the cutoff, and that would be an issue in interpreting the data when that's clearly not the case for many people.
I certainly saw some contemptuous cases in which a positive test was "forced" by repeat testing, and at the end of the day the massive testing was all done because of government funding. There's a lot of stories people may have of working in parking lot labs which seemed to have propped up just as quickly as the supposed hospitals did in China.
The most egregious flaw in much of the PCR testing that was done was that the reporting was simply "positive" or "negative". Cycle counts were rarely included. And certainly when looking at the aggregate numbers for case counts the cycle thresholds of PCR tests were simply ignored.
It was one of many reporting defects that gave an inaccurate picture of the severity of the disease--alongside the fact that as many as half of "COVID patients" in hospital were there for something other than COVID and just happened to come up positive on a PCR test.
Ultimately, the significance of the 90% false positive figure is that it underscores just how screwed up the COVID data is. Mass testing produced mostly mass confusion.
That's true, I don't believe we ever gave cycle counts out even though we were aware of them. It was just easier to report if people were "negative" or "positive". There's plenty of problems with how everything was tracked to the extent that a lot of the data that we have collected is unfortunately meaningless.
Over-cycling is a contentious topic. Misdirected means the test which it’s inventor claimed was never designed to be a definitive diagnostic tool (in and of itself means it’s being misused) is “primed” to find only what they want to find. Does anyone really believe masking and distancing ended the flu? You don’t find what you’re not looking for.
I always took Mullis' comments to suggest that PCR itself was never a good indicator of infection, but it seems like people may have extrapolated more from his argument. I believe it was the norm that one would see a physician, get examined for symptoms, and may come out with a diagnosis for some viral infection, in which case either a PCR test or a culture would then confirm. And so PCR may be a confirmatory mechanism, but by itself doesn't provide an actual measure of a case, hence why our asymptomatic numbers are likely to have been grossly overreported.
Keep in mind that most PCR tests are likely to screen for various viruses, with SARS-COV2 we only tested for SARS-COV2, meaning that any other possibility would not be screened for.
“ with SARS-COV2 we only tested for SARS-COV2, meaning that any other possibility would not be screened for.”
That is the misdirection I was speaking of. How many false positives precluded the necessity to test for anything else? The almost complete “disappearance” of Bronchitis, Influenza, etc., is so suspect as to be absurd. You don’t find what you’re not looking for.
I understand that. It's quite apparent that nothing really disappeared if you don't look for it. There's plenty of problems with how everything surrounding COVID went down.
The WHO has always defined a "case" for COVID to be symptoms PLUS positive test result.
And the protocol for influenza is to test when symptomatic--i.e., when you're sick enough to go to the doctor.
Had we respected these long-standing conventions for COVID there would have been no pandemic.
Setting aside for the moment questions of lab manufacture or just lab origin, as well as accidental vs deliberate release, SARS-CoV-2 has never measured up to its pandemic billing. Even as early as February of 2020, the cases and hospitalizations just never materialized at the projected scale.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/narrative-fail-were-missing-some
Chimeric virus or no, it has always resulted in "just the flu".
I agree, sort of. I’m 66 years old. Over my lifetime I’ve experienced various viral illnesses. Head and chest colds, sinus infection, mono, bronchitis, hand-foot-mouth, influenza, and none presented symptoms as weird as covid. Since when does the flu involve the sympathetic nervous system? Acute tachycardia, long-term total loss olfactory function, non-obstructive breathing insufficiency resulting in asymptomatic hypoxia, chronic insomnia… in addition to extreme inflammation of endothelial linings with little to no congestion. Nope. There’s no way this came from nature. It felt more like being poisoned by a biological nerve agent. There’s no flu that presents like this. That said, I do believe it was a hit and run. They couldn’t keep it up. It ran its course in short order so they spun up the fear factor to keep it going. Hospitals killed more people than covid. Remdesivir while banning/limiting monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. As far as variants are concerned, I don’t believe there are any variants. Or at least any to worry about. Why should I believe habitual liars? The plandemic was a military operation that forwarded a globalist agenda, made the rich fabulously wealthier, and politicians vastly more powerful. All at our expense. The entire event was planned.
Could it have been a bioweapon? Absolutely.
Could it have been deliberately released? Absolutely.
While the extant evidence is not 100% conclusive, some of it is compelling and we cannot rule out or even consider as improbable the notion of SARS-CoV-2 as a bioweapon that was intentionally released.
Regardless of its origin, SARS-CoV-2 is first and foremost a coronavirus--one of now seven coronavirus strains capable of infecting humans. They join a myriad of rhinovirus strains, adenovirus strains, as well as influenza virus strains in causing what is generically termed Influenza Like Illness. There are I believe some 200 discrete viral strains (not variants and subvariants) associated with Influenza Like Illness.
The thing to remember is that ILI can and does occasionally present unusual symptoms. There has even been a "long influenza" phenomenon which has gone unremarked for decades until after "long COVID" became a buzzword. Unusual symptomology merely proves the pathogen was or is a novel exhibitor of Influenza Like Illness.
Additionally, even "normal" seasonal waves of ILI are credited with tens of thousands of deaths in the US, and hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide. Not every case of "the flu" is mild, nor should we ever presume it to be so. Flu kills, and does so in droves every year.
HOWEVER
The viral strains which produce Influenza Like Illness are all infectious respiratory pathogens. They almost all spread via airborne aerosols. They all mutate fairly rapidly relative to other viruses such as measles, varicella, and orthopox viruses.
From time to time, a strain emerges (or re-emerges) that represents a significant deviation from the strains the human immune system already "knows". That's how you get the Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918-1919. That's how you get the Russian Flu pandemic of 1889-1890. The 1977 Russian flu epidemic was the result of an accidental lab release of a 1950s-era strain of influenza that had been in cold storage for two decades, and so became once again a "novel" pathogen when it re-emerged.
The 1889 Russian Flu outbreak resulted in some 1 million deaths. The Spanish Flu outbreak resulted in at least 17 million deaths. The 1977 Russian Flu outbreak resulted in approximately 700,000 deaths. Yet they were all "just the flu".
Spanish Influenza has been identified as a variant of H1N1 Influenza A. The 1889 Russian flu has been theorized as a variant of coronavirus OC43. Both of these viral strains are in circulation today, but have never exhibited the virulence of 1889 or 1918.
Was SARS-CoV-2 manufactured in a lab? There is a compelling body of evidence to suggest that it did. It is virtually certain that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab in some fashion, either as an accidental byproduct of an experiment gone wrong or a deliberate and wonton release. Even if it were synthesized in a lab, it is still an infectious respiratory pathogen that produces Influeznza Like Illness--and that means it is still "just the flu".
Which is also why we have seen the attenuation we have seen since 2020. As people's immune systems become more accustomed to dealing with that particular pathogen, its virulence has largely declined. Such is the nature of infectious respiratory pathogens.
Was the outbreak planned? That is possible. Yet if it was planned, it was still tripped up by the nature of infectious respiratory pathogens--in particular their tendency to attenuate in virulence over time, as the human immune system becomes more familiar with the virus. Mother Nature always wins.
Which is why, regardless of how severe or seemingly novel any person's particular symptoms might have been with COVID, yeah, it has always been "just the flu".
I respect your excellent explanation! Well done, sir.
No one listens to these murdering psychopaths!
The greatest bioweapon is fear.
Stimulating our innate survival mechanism and maintaining arousal through bonbardment of our perception with fear based messaging was genius.
The playbook has now been exposed.
Ground yourself and be prepared as the next attempt to remove agency and control your destiny under the guise of public health bears fruition.
That seems to be the case for many places, although water testing is a rather poor measure. It's kind of like the candle reviews where people started commenting that they couldn't smell anything. By the time you see those reviews it's likely that the variant has been circulating for quite some time, and so water testing is likely to lag behind by a good deal.
It makes sense. Waste water is likely to have a serious dilution effect. So maybe cases are rising, but overall the concern is whether we should go back to our old problematic ways, and it seems most people would rather not be invested in all of the fear anymore.