The illogic of virus deniers

I received an email from an ex-reader, addressed to about twenty editors of all kinds of media. Recurring theme of this ex-subscriber: "viruses don't exist". We all fell for it according to that current. Viruses don't exist so we're misled, so the lableak is, so it's a conspiracy. Or something like that. This is the last time I will spend time on this, as much as I can go along with the role of big pharma and its interconnectedness with governments. Below is the piece that had to convince the editors (partly, I thought it was enough halfway through). I have inserted my remarks on the taking of evidence in purple. The email also referred to a video But I couldn't get through that.

Lablek: A sophisticated deception?

The ongoing investigations into the elusive Covid Pandemic murder mystery have been polluted by all manner of obfuscations and deceptions. Chief among these shaky assumptions are the various versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus lab-leak theory, which has more lives than a wildcat and possesses the ability to resurface as often as the zombies lurking in the woods on the outskirts of the city.

Anyone who thinks that the lab leak theory was ever dead is very easily fooled.

Once the curtain is raised on the unsubstantiated lab leak hypotheses, the socially staged wizardry of the Covid Pandemic is revealed to be the basic scheme that it is.

"Base scheme", I suspect that this means a preconceived plan. The lableak hypothesis is not unfounded. I also don't understand the plural 'lab leak hypotheses', as if it were a grab bag of empty statements.

"Elusive", "Contaminated", "shaky", "unfounded"... For every suggestive choice of words, there is a question to ask. We are dealing with an impassioned opinion piece. It is clear which way the author wants us to go. Gideon van Meijeren is nothing like it. Even if he is 100% right, he knows how to bring it so that all the shutters go down in the audience. This is a counterproductive communication strategy: the 'straight-leg-headkick'. It is precisely those who would like to inform you who feel radicalisation that makes you unbelievable. You have to be careful with enthusiasm. It quickly leads to a hopeless approach.

The lab-leak claim states that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered quasi-biological, lethal gain-of-function phenomenon rather than one created by the Computer-generated construction. It Initial research article illustrates that the virus in question was nothing more than an in-silico appearance, a simulacrum created by demonstrably unreliable genomic sequencing.

The lablek claim does not state that the research purpose fell under the definition of 'gain-of-function', although it is certainly an option. It comes from a lab, that's the lab leak theory. I don't know exactly how the sequencing works. A lot has happened since that first research article that is referred to, but it is an expertise that is not mine, I can't say much about that. Virus or not? What I don't understand is what it would make to the course of the pandemic response. In labs all over the world, infectious pathogens and protection against them are being used. Compare it to gas masks and tearAsh, but contagious. The military-industrial complex is pouring hundreds of millions into this. Follow the money, I think. This is not an idee-fixe. Whether it's a virus or something else, they don't care at all, as long as it's contagious (or not, depending on the purpose of use) and sickening and/or deadly. The PCR test would also be fake, because viruses do not exist. That reasoning is also wrong, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version. After all, you can always make fake tests, for which the existence or non-existence of viruses is irrelevant.

This theory is based on the fanciful story that an escaped virus from a hyperreality TV show miraculously slipped out of a biological research facility in faraway Wuhan, China, went on a global rampage and killed millions of people.

It is by no means miraculous. It happens regularly and obstructive security measures are evaded. Do I really need to keep going into this nonsense? (In the original article there are links to other articles, please check them because I won't copy them here anymore, it will take me too much time.)

By suggesting that the virus was a man-made microbial killer, the proclaimers of the lab leak narrative avoid the idea that the past three-and-a-half years have been a deliberate, highly organized slaughter of the world's population under the guise of protecting "public health."

Deliberate, organized? Why not the position of the stars? Or a Mayan calendar cycle? Or opportunistic protection of self-interest? There is just as much evidence for this.

Unfortunately, many knowledgeable people who are skeptical of the pharmacological fantasies of the medical industry are still trapped in the lab leak circuit of the Covid merry-go-round.

Amid the hyper-focus on gain-of-function research, furin cleavage sites, restriction enzymes, and the rest of the science fiction vernacular that cloak the lab-leak hypothesis in scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo, lies an elementary question: "Does this theory hold up even the slightest?"

Gain-of-function research, furin cleavage sites, restriction enzymes are realities. What you don't understand isn't necessarily untrue. There are also frequent references to computers in a way that reminds me of the Amish. Computers are tools that we use, among other things, to analyze and design microstructures. Whether it is a poison (which does not multiply in organisms) or a virus (a poison that can multiply in organisms and become infectious).

One glaring quirk that calls into question the threat of a "bioweapon from the lab" is the fact that the "Covid-19" deaths follow the age/risk stratification and seasonal curve of influenza and pneumonia (two diseases that were lumped together in their charts by health authorities until 2020).

You can only say whether that calls something into question if you know the purpose of such a bioweapon. Maybe they've just made it to follow the pattern of the flu, to mislead you! (I mean this as a joke, not that this will be used as 'evidence' again). According to the virus deniers there will and must be an evil genius. I see it as an expression of the typical human penchant for religion, which is then Personified.

Equally inexplicable is the fact that flu cases reported in 2020 suddenly disappeared in many countries.

There is always a dominant variant that strikes earlier and on a larger scale than less successful variants within the time frame of a particular immunity habitat. And there is no doubt that a lot of flu has been attributed to Covid. This is easy to explain without paranoid scenarios. The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the most likely.

Meanwhile, many pneumonia deaths since 2020 have been fraudulently attributed to "Covid" on death certificates. Even if the bioweapon theory were a reality, perhaps we should be relieved, because Covid seemed to be able to affect only two types of populations:

1. people over 80 with multiple comorbidities and
2. other chronically ill people who were already in hospitals and nursing homes or were sent there.

Maybe that was the intention. Or maybe it was because the bioweapon wasn't finished yet. Or was it just a lab accident by someone who was trying to save the world from the next pandemic, which would also mainly affect people over 80.

In these institutions, "Covid" patients were forcibly "treated" with toxic medication, put on sedatives and ventilators that inflated or collapsed their lungs, and left in their rooms to die a painful, lonely, desperate death.

Family members were not allowed to be with them to comfort them, to ask questions about the macabre protocols that were applied mercilessly, and to chase them out of "death row."

Yes, and? Why did those people come to the hospital in the first place? And even then, if this is true, how does that contribute to the thesis that viruses don't exist? It could also happen with a virus. 'They did it to bully us'? That, too, sounds religious: an omnipotence that has its eyes on us.

That the death rate attributed to Covid was so low among the rest of the world's population proves that the alleged "bioweapon" was a dud.

This statement alone. It may also have been a test. Or a sneaky aerogenic chip implantation with side effects. Or it was ultimately about the vaccinations, in preparation for an alien invasion. The aliens can now pick out the most docile with a simple scan to rape them in their UFOs. Or it was just an accident.

In fact, to hang on to the lab leak theory and the grandiose narrative of the Covid pandemic requires twisted mental gymnastics and a blind faith in the esoteric.

Well, I'm tempted to give up here. Following the rules of logic seems to you to be twisted brain acrobatics. I can imagine something about it, because a blind faith in evil conspiracies requires little brainpower. Not to say: little brainpower is required.

Numerous incongruities indicate that the lab leak theory – and possibly the virus itself – is a myth.

Here are a few quirks that should prompt any sane person to question the lab leak theory:

(1) This so-called Covid virus apparently struck without warning. There was no discernible evidence of contamination in late 2019 or early 2020 that would lead to mass mortality. In the U.S. and in alleged hotspots elsewhere, the Covid death event began to be reported in the very same week that the WHO declared a global pandemic – in mid-March 2020.

How on earth is that sudden appearance an argument against a lab leak? Did other viruses jump to orange first or something? Denis Rancourt also uses this simultaneity of proclamations and outbreaks, but I don't see him substantiating it anywhere. The proclamations were just quite accurate, so indeed about the same time as the outbreak began, sometimes a little earlier. If they had announced it six months earlier, it would have been more suspicious. A month later, too. This is idle chatter.

ASK:

What dark magic was involved that trained this microbial Kraken to be released only on administrative orders and to peak synchronously only in certain locations?

Apparently, you expect all locations to be neatly finished one by one, regardless of seasonal conditions, etc.

Are we to believe that a suddenly super-spreading, deadlier than flu, well-functioning virus was waiting for a government decree to create an excess of deaths?

No, you don't have to. That's something you've come up with yourself by not considering accurate proclamation and not thinking about weather conditions, holidays, or whatever.

Why didn't this deadly virus cause mass mortality in the Chinese city where a lab leak allegedly occurred at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

Why? Maybe it wasn't the most vulnerable population at the time, did you ever think about that? The reliability of the official Chinese figures is also sometimes questioned. It may also be that fining, punishing and locking up people helps to reduce general mortality. Plenty of possibilities. Who knows, at least not you because every question leads you to the answer "So it wasn't a virus so it was planned that way".

(2) This alleged virus did not migrate from northern Italy to central or southern Italy, nor did it affect other parts of Europe. Instead, it improbably jumped straight to a public hospital in Elmhurst in the Corona neighborhood of Queens, New York City.

QUESTION: Was that a fluke or not?

There have been more places where infected people have infected large groups of others under optimal conditions due to a lack of common-sense measures. The après-ski party and carnival, for example, or nursing homes. Lots of people, little outside air, proper humidity.

(3) The "first wave" of Covid deaths in the U.S. occurred almost exclusively in nursing homes and hospitals, not in the general population.

ASK:

How is it possible that this virus was so demographically smart?

Same question, same answer: There have been more places where infected people have infected large groups of others under optimal conditions due to a lack of common-sense measures. The après-ski party and carnival, for example, or nursing homes. Lots of people, little outside air, proper humidity.

Why did it focus so specifically on those institutions, filled with the sick, the weak, and the elderly, and so completely overrun them?

The fact that they were overwhelmed has nothing to do with the medication they administered. Think about it for a moment: your 'plan' means that people first had to be made sick via a relatively harmless virus (or no: imaginary) so that they could be injected to death in hospitals and ventilated to death. A bit cumbersome, isn't it? That can really be much more convenient.

Could the high mortality rate in hospitals and nursing homes have nothing to do with their application of dangerous protocols, their unilateral "do-not-resuscitate" orders, and their apparently deliberate policy of neglect?

Yes, I believe so. And that's why it's NOT a virus...? And no lableak? Something goes terribly wrong in that logical sequence. A 'fallacy' usually resembles real argumentation, but here any connection is lost.

(4) During that alleged "first wave," the people affected were mostly poor, and many were disabled.

QUESTION: How is this Frankenstein virus programmed to avoid upper-middle-class people and wealthy people? How did it know to shun healthy and capable people? Aren't the poor always more susceptible to disease? Do we need a viral event to explain this?

Any relapse affects the poor first. So is climate change. Do you also ask the question of how climate change Know that he must first strike the poor? Really something for the stupid questions category, I'm not even going to explain that. Could the lableak story only be valid if a representative part of the world's population had died? Otherwise, it's not a bioweapon and so it's not a virus and therefore not a lab leak? There is no strings attached.

(5) During that first wave, if the "spreading pathogen" story is to be believed, we have to believe that this virus was geographically cooked. How could it be that certain counties and metro areas in certain states in the U.S. were affected, while neighboring regions were not affected? Curiously, many of these Covid-affected counties in the U.S. were right next to areas that weren't affected, including in the NYC metro region, where the virus seemed unable to cross rivers.

QUESTION: Was this "gain-of-function" hobgoblin designed to recognize county, state, and country boundaries and confine itself to urban areas, while largely leaving suburban and rural communities alone?

These are curious questions for someone who has studied the subject. Data is generally measured and made available on a country/state basis. You could rather think of administrative differences or different packages of measures (note that these will be 'divergent results' later in the article). said). The difference between urban and rural areas... I'm going to stop. It's really stupid to think you have something to say and then come up with this kind of basic misunderstanding. Let your imagination work or even better: read up!

(6) Even after the "first wave," the populations that seemed to be the exclusive target of this "bioweapon," both inside and outside institutions, were the elderly, the sick, and the disabled—people more susceptible to all kinds of ailments.

QUESTION: Why did the supposedly new virus overtake children and younger adults and healthy people?

So first you make it suspicious that the virus is selective and then you make it suspicious that less vulnerable people will get their turn anyway? What!?

(7) This lab-leaked demonic entity killed far more victims in places where de facto police state "emergency measures" were most severe and far fewer victims in neighboring jurisdictions with milder measures.

QUESTION: Why?

Because the virus read the newspaper about the disproportionate measures and hit back extra hard at reluctant jurisdictions. Okay?

What each of these bizarre events illustrates is that there was no global viral event.

Why not, did we miss something? I mainly see assumptions, inconsistencies and logical errors.

Instead, we saw radically different public health policies and mandates in a handful of jurisdictions around the world produce radically different health outcomes.

So different measures, all aimed at virus control, led to different results. Does that mean a virus or not? Incomprehensible. It is obvious that different behaviours lead to different results. What do you conclude from that? 👇

Thus, it is implausible to attribute this converging set of conditions to a lab-leaked daemon or pathogen of any kind. It must be attributed to a coordinated campaign orchestrated by powerful interest groups and their collaborators in academia, the medical industry, and the media.

"Converging"...? And if you can't explain it yourself, it's SO an orchestrated campaign. Right. That's how you make a conspiracy out of everything you don't fathom.

We're only halfway through the piece, but I've seen enough. No more e-mails please. I'm open to substantiated hypotheses, but they're not going to come from this corner.

P.s.: I don't respond to comments or emails anymore. I've already spent too much time on it.