Scepticism must be total and equal
Being initially cautious of “No Virus Evidence” talk is healthy – as long as the same rigour is applied to “contagion” talk
Reposting a comment I made some time ago. Again, it matters little to whom the comment was directed.
If this had been addressed to me just a few years ago my reaction would certainly have been sceptical. And indeed it was. For a long time.
And that’s a good thing. I remain sceptical but am now aware of many things I was not previously aware of. To be clear, you’re entitled of course to believe whatever you want to believe.
I have no monopoly on calling out deceptions. That said, I have no doubt whatsoever about the appalling deceptions of
- the causes of illnesses.
This gives life to the fake virus notion, and everything claimed to be evidence for viruses isn’t just wrong, it’s obvious deception, once you look closely at it and about
- the narrative of “contagion” or transmission
If it’s so clearly a case of “Everybody knows…”, then you’ll have no difficulty finding any number of empirical clinical studies demonstrating the phenomenon. Perhaps you would like to then claim the £10,000 offered by Tim West for so long for any such evidence?
What then “vaccines”?
The eagle eyed will immediately realise that BOTH “viral-induced illnesses” AND “contagion” must be real, unambiguous things in order that “vaccines” stand any chance at all of being the miracles of medical science that we’re told they are.
Yet both underpinning concepts cannot be demonstrated and worse, a series of obvious falsehoods have always been used to justify them.
I am a happy pledger to the Virus Confirmation Fund. I’m confident I won’t have to pay a penny.
That means not only the Convid jabs, or Poison-19 injections, as I think Sasha Latypova first called them, but ALL “vaccines” are nothing but unnecessary, ineffective and harmful to varying degrees and always have been.
If you’re left with doubts, check out the legal assessments of legal scholar, Katherine Watt. Streaked right through a century and more of federal laws and regulations is absolute clarity that no product categorised as a “vaccine” has ever been regulated the way I and you previously thought.
No tests on safety, of tolerability, or of effectiveness have ever been done. Furthermore, the composition of such products is unknown and there are no requirements for the product to be the same through time or between batches.
https://bailiwicknewsarchives.wordpress.com/litigation-leeuwarden-netherlands/
A lot of people know this inside the institutions. Government, pharmaceutical companies, in U.K. the NHS, the uppermost people in the medical profession, the medical journal editors etc etc.
This state of affairs has persisted for decades. It’s not a minor thing, because most children are routinely injected with these weapons systems and also many older people (my age and up) are routinely jabbed every year, ostensibly against influenza.
Once you’ve settled in your mind that what I’ve claimed is true, I don’t understand anyone continuing to believe that these institutions are telling you the truth about anything?
Why would they, if you cannot verify their claims and someone backing them would benefit from something other than the truth?
I’m way past the point where it’s far more rational to assume that all substantial announcements from high authority, where we cannot verify the claims, are untrue, and work my way forward from there.
Ps: an additional, obvious conclusion is that “pandemics” are also fictitious. They don’t happen because they cannot happen.
Nevertheless, a darned good impression of such a thing can be faked and has been faked, for example by killing lots of people in hospitals and care homes by means of radical changes to medical treatment protocols.
See more here substack.com