"The Virus versus The Response": False Binary and Dominant Dissent
Further observations on debates surrounding the COVID-19 event
Here we consider another false binary of the COVID-19 event:
Excess deaths were caused by “the virus” versus by “iatrogenic causes”.
Virus versus Treatment sprung up almost immediately during the first wave of “pandemic declaration” excess mortality as an explanation for what caused the deaths shown in provisional data and described in news reports: Is SARS-CoV-2 killing more people, or is the manner of “treating” and trying to slow or stop “it” to blame?
The word iatrogenic — aka, death by medical misadventure — became more common later1 and the debate persists as The Virus versus The Response, with the latter being inclusive of all manner of policies and protocols implemented due to the WHO’s pandemic declaration.
But the duality is fallacious, if not a deliberate misdirection, in the sense that it protects what we’ve called the central false binary in the COVID event:
A novel, risk-additive virus/disease was spreading from a point-source, constituted a threat, and warranted a response of some kind.
In dissident arenas, the critical emphasis on damage created by “the response” morphed into the claim that the virus itself, i.e., its existence, origin, pathogenicity, transmissibility, is irrelevant. What matters, the argument goes, is what was done in its name, as these two posts on X asserted:
Once considered counter-narrative and radical, this stance has been marked “safe” for public discourse, media platforms, and academic journals. Why? Because it affirms that something emerged (or leaked, or was released) which compelled taking action and activating plans.
Dominant Dissent and a Continuum of Belief
Having surveyed the range of theories and beliefs among those challenging the WHO’s origin story, we offer a “composite” of what might be called Mainstream or Dominant Dissent about what happened with “the response” and what would have happened with a different one:
SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that emerged, evolved, or mutated into existence in 2019 and began transmitting from some region of the world.
From there, it “seeded” or spread globally, in ways too subtle for detection systems to catch and was “hiding in the flu.”
Absent detection and “response,” either: a) nothing much would’ve been noticed, or b) some modest excess mortality might have occurred, varying by location and local response.
When it comes to deaths attributed to COVID-19 (specifically, those coded U07.1 prior to deployment of the shot) there exists a continuum of belief:
Almost all were caused by SARS-CoV-22
Most were due to SARS-CoV-2 with some caused by the “response”
Roughly half and half
Most were due to the “response,” with some or few from SARS-CoV-2
All were due to the “response,” none from SARS-CoV-2
Whatever portion is genuine (i.e., not fabricated or manipulated) was caused by the actions taken in the name of or disguised as a response. None were due to SARS-CoV-2.
It’s hard to say where the public would land on this range of views if asked directly — or which stance dominates among dissenting doctors, scientists, and public figures. But the differences aren’t trivial. Each view reflects a deeper belief about whether future pandemics are inevitable and “worth” planning for.
Almost every position across the spectrum, no matter how critical, accepts an unproven premise: that something real and dangerous appeared, spread, and warranted a response. The only debate is how well the response was “handled” because we need to “do better” next time.
But if no spreading threat was ever demonstrated, and no causal link between a virus and a disease ever established, then it wasn’t a botched reaction. It was a manufactured crisis.
In our view, any argument that sidesteps the fallacy of spread leaves the perpetrators’ tools untouched. The machinery remains, ready to be used again. Same script, new “pathogen.” Repudiating “lockdowns” is important, yet not enough — which remains a line most dissent still won’t cross.
Related
Alt: “a thing/sequence called SARS-CoV-2”
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|