All cause mortality incompatible with the idea of a respiratory disease that was spreading in the manner that was believed.
In proportion to its population, it has massive all-cause excess deaths during the COVID period. Most western european countries and Canada do not. Why is that? Looking at various large sized states geographically proximate with different properties and methodologies allows you to look for various correlations between excess mortality in a given state and various social, economic and health parameters of the populations in those states. 50 plots on a graph
People don't realize the extremely fragile pools of individuals that exist in the United States to explain this high mortality
Poverty, obesity, disability - those are the people who died.
In the latest all-cause mortality study - they found evidence of time synchronicity between an incresae in vaccine doses that are delivered to the body, and an increase in mortality.
You can think of this in terms of there are conditions where a forest fire is likely and any spark will do. A lot of dry underbrush, lots of fuel, and a lot of wind. You have this huge, globalized pandemic response / network of institutions. These people exist to respond to pandemics. They are a huge hammer looking for a nail. That have set it up, they fund it, they practice scenarios (funded by pharma and special interests). You've got an army of professionals, including scientists, that are ready to go. And you could add all the pieces that are aprt fo the dry underbrush.
Another piece is that in medical science they have, unfortunately (most medical researchers), have had their minds turned towards this idea that death and disease is mono-causal. A pathogen is responsible, and therefore if you can find something that will attack that pathogen, you will be curing people. This is a very tunnel-vision view of health, ignoring many well-established social animal studies that shwo that the very first determinant of health is a dominance hierarchy stress that the individual is subjected to. That is by far the dominant factor regarding individual health. It just ignores all of that and ignores reality, basically, and has all these MDs and researchers with tunnel vision looking for pathogens and wanting to figure out how to kill these pathogens.
In addition, because you've got that, you've got professional scientists who are going to be given recognition and even nobel prizes if they discover a new pathogen that is causing a new disease. It is like a chemist discovering a new molecule that has very nice properties. It's like a physcist discovering a principle that will explain many experiments. A minerologist will want to discover a new mineral and name it after him or one of his friends.
These medical researchers are looking for viruses. They're looking for viruses all the time and they, therefore, have an internal professional bias to find viruses. The problem is viruses are very small, they're invisible, they're different to separate from the bodily fluids and everything else that is in the infected organ. This is scientifically a very difficult thing to do - to identify a new virus - when you've got a whole ecology of viruses and bacteria in all your organs, your intestinal tract. Literally billions of organisms in your body.
In addition to that, they tend to be over-reliant on technology. So there are methods that have been developed to get genetic sequences, nad they rely on them excessively. Traditionally you would separate out the viral particles and you would look at them under the microscope and learn to find, look at and recognize them and THEN separate them out in large enough quantities to be able to do analyses on them.
Now, they basically swish all that fluid through their PCR machine and then get partial answers and use a computer to, in all likelihood, recreate what the genetic code must be. And they rely on that.
Once it's accepted that something is the genetic code of a new virus then, they're you go, you're off working from that assumption. You have no choice but to run with it. And the person who submitted the code tot he international bodies gets recognized for having discovered the virus, and so on.
There are all these forces - institutional structural bias - that are present and that are just ready to be triggered. And in addition to that you've got the fact that this is internationalized. MD researchers in China will have been educated and trained in the US. There are exchanges and funding between labs. It's a tight-knit professional network.
Ignoring the details in the chain of historic events that led us precisely to the WHO announcing a pandemic. Some chinese researchers described a particularly bad pneumonia-type disease being seen in some hospitals. Someone collected fluid from the lungs of one of those patients and derived, from these indirect methods, a genetic code which they sent off to an international body and that was therefore accepted that a new pathogen was around.
There are a few other elements to the story. Once you have a new pathogen that people are talking about, the modelers get involved. The UK modelers had a paper come out from (?) saying this started in China and China has a responsibility to lock down/stop flights to reduce international harm. They did some stupid epidemiological modeling based on people taking flights, R factor and concluded with egregiously wrong estimtaes of how many people could be killed and, therefore, China has a moral and national responsibility.
That came out very early in a leading journal and that, things like it, and the talk and propaganda around it would have pressured China to lock down and demonstrate, in a propaganda move, that they could build hospitals over night and were taking this seriously.
Then, once it had gone far enough, there was an interview by a former KGB intelligence general who said that China HAD to stop being the origin of the propaganda so they told the MDs and Researchers to just calm down and not lock down their entire economy. As a result, China flourished in the Covid period and kept its economy going. They stopped talking about and testing for SARS-CoV-2.
Even though there is all this dry underbrush/instutional structures/all of these things ready and in place. The pandemic measures we saw being applied, and over such a long period with such a level of aggression, could have not occurred without oversight and encouragement by geopolitical forces. This doesn't happen spontaneously. They went overboard and it was clear that they wanted complete increase in ability to know everybody's whereabout. To surveil all the world's population as much as they could - they wanted that ability to be implemented. The ability to shut down your bank accounts. An E-currency that is tied to everyone's individual bank accounts.
It is clear that geopolitically there are some clear obvious goals that were being pursued and that COVID was a way of achieving those goals. Once the notion fo a pandemic and a virulent pathogen is accepted and all of these brilliant professional researchers and MDs have bought into it, you don't have to design anything. That's just going to be the story.
The question is: how far are the measure going to go? How long are they going to last? How will the governments use this? How will they manipulate it? There is no way that a medical researcher is going to say "you know, maybe there wasn't a pathogen this time". They will be the lone person saying that, and it goes contrary to their work.
Health is more than influenza. Disease experts are people who will lean into things in this manner simply because it's in their best interest.
The virus has not been isolated in the classic scientific sense of a nanoparticle being isolated. There is no way that a purified sample of macroscopic size has been produced and, therefore, analyzed with methods that allow accuracy.
Even the high-resolution electron microscope pictures are not that convincing. Denis used to have an electron microscope and he did a lot of electron microscopy, taught it at the graduate level, taught all the measurement methods at the graduate level (spectroscopy, diffraction, various forms of microscopy). It's hard to do these measurements and even just to find the object that you would like to illustrate.
There's always impurities and way more variety and zoology of objects than you would like. We have not seen any electron pictures that would correspond to a purified sample.
If what you're injecting the cell culture with is not pure than what is being reproduced? There are lots of problems.
Researchers will respond with the following: "Look, maybe it's really hard to separate, get a large sample and reproduce in a cell culture. I'll admit that there are problems at the microscope world, but we have this wonderful PCR technology. And when we apply it, we get a sequence that definitely corresponds to a virus. There are many parts of it that we definitely recognize as being parts of the virus. Using a computer, we can make the entire genomic sequence of the virus. On that basis, we believe that there is a virus in there, even though we can't physically grab it, isolate it and study it as we'd like to.
So, on the basis of this PCR technology, we believe it exists".
That is a fair argument because the only way to counter it is to examine the molecular mechanism of this PCR technique and look at all the artifacts that can arise, how it works, whether it always works, if the result is hypersensitive to how you do the procedure in the lab, or how the computer algorithms are to correct the fact of you not having enough of a macroscopic sample to be able to do the sequencing step by step and get the sequence. Are these algorithms reliable, what is the uncertainty in that. If you want to critique their proposal that you should believe them because of the PCR technique, then you have to get into the nuts and bolts of what they're doing.
Having looked at some of these articles which get into the PCR methods being used, it's very technical and they're hard to find. You don't have definitive researchers critiquing techniques for which a nobel prize was given for discovery.
PCR is a huge family of techniques. To what level do you want to characterize this sample. To what degree and what methods do you want to use?
It's not a binary thing where you say PCR is worthless or wonderful. In some applications, it's amazing. If you get a large macroscopic sample of blood, in forensics science, PCR has had some good use. It depends on how far you want to go.
Blood type: if the criminal has a certain blood type, and the blood you found on the scene is different - it's open and shut.
How much detail do you need? How much discernment do you want to make in the measurement?
A spectrum of ways to use PCR and various resolutions that can be achieved.
Ryan thinks PCR was the best tool because it can be manipulated.
If you didn't have PCR, and could not supposedly obtain genetic sequences, you wouldn't be able to do any of this. You wouldn't be able to say that you have a virus, or that there is a virus.
It's very difficult to do and the only times it's been done. It would be so much work and resources and would be open to critique because the techniques being used are much more transparent and are easier to understand.
Culturing in a lab, for example.
Our conversations get discussed as being a process of deception in which one or more of the parties is deceiving the other.
Nobel prizes are part of the science propaganda enterprise. Not saying that every nobel prize fits in this caftegory. You need some that are authentic and major/real discoveries, like Einstein.
The Nobel Prize is necessarily political because to submit someone for the prize you have to have researchers. You need to get in there and have influence.
There's a correlation between Nobel Prizes being given and geopolitical agendas being advanced as a result. I am looking at the Ozone hole molecular mechanism and things like that. There was a Nobel Prize for discovering the pathogen that causes AIDS.
There are agendas even in things lik ethe Nobel Prize that is otherwise thought to be a purely scienific acknowledgment.