When asked why I defend a lab leak (intentional or otherwise; I believe intentional) virus theory, I always point out the fundamental truth of virus outbreaks: viruses that kill their host *do not spread well*; the best spreading viruses (for example, rhinoviruses, associated with the cold), do little to harm the host.
When asked why I defend a lab leak (intentional or otherwise; I believe intentional) virus theory, I always point out the fundamental truth of virus outbreaks: viruses that kill their host *do not spread well*; the best spreading viruses (for example, rhinoviruses, associated with the cold), do little to harm the host.
When I gave my predictions on outcomes to the government - predictions you will NEVER hear, because they are borderline prescient and undercut the government's totalitarian narrative - my prediction was the virus would go 'resident' (and thus 'latent', I.E. a non-threat) within 4 years REGARDLESS of what measures were adopted.
I also used this basis to REJECT a vaccine rollout (by the time a 12 year tested vaccine was rolled out, it would be effectively gone). Any "vaccine" made faster than 4 years would be unsafe, and the mutation rates of SARS-CoV-2 meant Hoskins effect would occur and even the 'best intentioned' shots would not work.
There were historical examples of pathogens becoming latent ('endemic') within 4 years; the Spanish flu (1918-1920), the Russian flu (1889 to early 1895). The worst disease outbreak, the black plague, lasted at most 7 years (1346 to 1353).
All diseases trend either towards zero (black plague wiped itself out as it was too effective at killing the hosts), or 'homoeostasis' (the Russian flu is now a common cold... for kids!).
There could be no real fatality risk from SARS-CoV-2, and it was already clear those they proclaimed had a fatality risk were the elderly (60s+). The *ONLY* risk, which absolutely NO-ONE at the time, could have known, is whether or not it had a 'secondary function', for example, if it acts like an 'airborne HIV' or had some nasty side-effect that takes time to manifest.
That is to say: a fast spreading virus and a immediately fatal virus are mutually exclusive paradigms. Could it have been more fatal than flu? Yeah, possibly, however with the rife fraud in reporting in order to unlock COVID-19 finances, to cover-up other crimes (Midazolam murders, etc), the broken PCR testing... we will never be able to confirm that.
The virus is real - real enough for people to be able to sequence, independently, in a lab, real enough for WIV to work on, real enough for Pfizer to mutate in that giant Project Veritas scandal - is it fatal? No.
If you asked me what drove fatality rates, it would be near exclusively both midazolam (pre-2021) and midazolam-esque injected substances, and the COVID-19 shots (start of 2021). I found no evidence of COVID-19 related spikes in death that *weren't* attributable to other causes.
It is my opinion a weak, fast spreading virus was released (in order to sell it to independent scientists who would be looking for evidence), coupled with a behind-the-scenes massacre of the elderly and other vulnerable groups via the use of poisonous and lethal injections, in order to craft the appearance of a deadly and fatal pathogen, in order to sell the 'presence' of a pandemic such they could force through tyrannical measures through the front door.
No other genuine assessment of the facts can arrive at any other conclusion.
On top of this, it is my opinion they tried twice with a *genuinely* fatal virus in the form of the original SARS, but quickly found out on both attempts (SARS and MERS) that fatal viruses do not spread well, and thus went back to the drawing board.
What's notable about the viruses Peter Daszak & Co studied is they are mainly 'resident viruses'; viruses that stay latent in a host body without generally harming the host. Essentially, a non-lethal virus with a long-time persistence (which is ideal if your goal is to spread it as far and as wide as possible).
Even then, those resident viruses are only bat-compatible, hence the engineering requirement via serialised passage in humanised mice to make it 'human compatible'. What I find notable is Daszak work is about spread, not lethality.
What really drove fatality rates was our collective obedience and deference to authority. We allowed our minds to be seduced by the Fear Mongers and abandoned our lives to Psychopathic Generals and Administrators and Commercial Purveyors peddling their Emergency Use Products and Protocols. What will drive Fatality rates going forward?
When asked why I defend a lab leak (intentional or otherwise; I believe intentional) virus theory, I always point out the fundamental truth of virus outbreaks: viruses that kill their host *do not spread well*; the best spreading viruses (for example, rhinoviruses, associated with the cold), do little to harm the host.
When I gave my predictions on outcomes to the government - predictions you will NEVER hear, because they are borderline prescient and undercut the government's totalitarian narrative - my prediction was the virus would go 'resident' (and thus 'latent', I.E. a non-threat) within 4 years REGARDLESS of what measures were adopted.
I also used this basis to REJECT a vaccine rollout (by the time a 12 year tested vaccine was rolled out, it would be effectively gone). Any "vaccine" made faster than 4 years would be unsafe, and the mutation rates of SARS-CoV-2 meant Hoskins effect would occur and even the 'best intentioned' shots would not work.
There were historical examples of pathogens becoming latent ('endemic') within 4 years; the Spanish flu (1918-1920), the Russian flu (1889 to early 1895). The worst disease outbreak, the black plague, lasted at most 7 years (1346 to 1353).
All diseases trend either towards zero (black plague wiped itself out as it was too effective at killing the hosts), or 'homoeostasis' (the Russian flu is now a common cold... for kids!).
There could be no real fatality risk from SARS-CoV-2, and it was already clear those they proclaimed had a fatality risk were the elderly (60s+). The *ONLY* risk, which absolutely NO-ONE at the time, could have known, is whether or not it had a 'secondary function', for example, if it acts like an 'airborne HIV' or had some nasty side-effect that takes time to manifest.
That is to say: a fast spreading virus and a immediately fatal virus are mutually exclusive paradigms. Could it have been more fatal than flu? Yeah, possibly, however with the rife fraud in reporting in order to unlock COVID-19 finances, to cover-up other crimes (Midazolam murders, etc), the broken PCR testing... we will never be able to confirm that.
The virus is real - real enough for people to be able to sequence, independently, in a lab, real enough for WIV to work on, real enough for Pfizer to mutate in that giant Project Veritas scandal - is it fatal? No.
If you asked me what drove fatality rates, it would be near exclusively both midazolam (pre-2021) and midazolam-esque injected substances, and the COVID-19 shots (start of 2021). I found no evidence of COVID-19 related spikes in death that *weren't* attributable to other causes.
It is my opinion a weak, fast spreading virus was released (in order to sell it to independent scientists who would be looking for evidence), coupled with a behind-the-scenes massacre of the elderly and other vulnerable groups via the use of poisonous and lethal injections, in order to craft the appearance of a deadly and fatal pathogen, in order to sell the 'presence' of a pandemic such they could force through tyrannical measures through the front door.
No other genuine assessment of the facts can arrive at any other conclusion.
Agreed
On top of this, it is my opinion they tried twice with a *genuinely* fatal virus in the form of the original SARS, but quickly found out on both attempts (SARS and MERS) that fatal viruses do not spread well, and thus went back to the drawing board.
What's notable about the viruses Peter Daszak & Co studied is they are mainly 'resident viruses'; viruses that stay latent in a host body without generally harming the host. Essentially, a non-lethal virus with a long-time persistence (which is ideal if your goal is to spread it as far and as wide as possible).
Even then, those resident viruses are only bat-compatible, hence the engineering requirement via serialised passage in humanised mice to make it 'human compatible'. What I find notable is Daszak work is about spread, not lethality.
What really drove fatality rates was our collective obedience and deference to authority. We allowed our minds to be seduced by the Fear Mongers and abandoned our lives to Psychopathic Generals and Administrators and Commercial Purveyors peddling their Emergency Use Products and Protocols. What will drive Fatality rates going forward?