"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
|
Forgive me if I missed it, but the proposition that “there was nothing additive other than fear-provoking propaganda” is, in my carefully considered opinion, both correct AND fatally undermines the entire psyop that is “contagious illnesses caused by viruses, requiring vaccines to protect us”.
This is because there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any virus. A very extensive list is available of people explaining this and showing that every “pillar of evidence”, used by The Perpetrators of this & related deceptions, are not only invalid but obviously fraudulent and contrived. Two quick examples are instructive.
1. The claims made for the “isolation” of each claimed virus uses the same method used by John Enders in the 1950s for, if I recall correctly, claiming to have been the first to have “isolated the measles virus”. The famous, peer-reviewed research paper claiming this monumental finding, reveals the cheat at the heart of the deceptive claim.
In brief, a clinical sample, purporting to contain the presumptive pathogen, is added to cells in culture, whereupon the cells begin to die.
What most people do not know & when told it, frequently do not believe it, is that the whole method fails the basic mechanics of the scientific method. What wasn’t done in the Enders / measles study, and has been repeated, decade after decade, was to run controls, in which nothing was added to the cells in culture.
When that very control is run, as demonstrated recently by Jamie Andrews et al (pls see his Substack account for a detailed description of methods, findings and conclusions) the cells die in exactly the same way as when the alleged virus is added. It’s the manipulated conditions of cell culture which causes them to die at that point in the procedure. Nothing at all is associated with adding a sample from a patient.
2. The second example is, if a person hasn’t previously heard this, often met with disbelief. We’ve been conditioned by Hollywood films such as “Contagion” and many others, to believe that illnesses like influenza are readily transmitted from person to person & when the illness is most easily transmitted & is severe, is the basis for “pandemics” from time to time.
The shock is to be informed that numerous, independent clinical research groups have actively set out to characterise this transmission or contagion, by asking sick people to share space with healthy people and noting how often these healthy people go on to develop the illness in question.
However, on every occasion, the clinical research group was unable to detect contagion. Those notionally exposed to the alleged pathogen became sick no more often that those controls, who spent time with healthy people. Contagion is a lie. It does not occur. Particularly clever is using acute respiratory illnesses for the fake pandemic. It’s clever because, as a population, we experience such illnesses often enough that, when we fall sick in this way, we can often pick out a recent encounter with a person who has similar symptoms and it is to this encounter that we attribute our illness. However, it’s an illusion, because these illnesses are definitely not contagious. I have a document containing all (as far as we can tell) of the clinical studies mentioned above on my Telegram account. Interestingly, the first, good quality studies were undertaken in what are known as the Rosenau studies on WW1 service personnel in USA. People sick with what was named “Spanish Flu” were the “donors”. As seen subsequently, decade after decade, no one who’d spent time with such sick people became ill more often than those who’d spent time with healthy “donors”.
People often literally refuse to look at these published studies.
Instead, it’s very common that people INSIST until they’re almost blue in the face that this is wrong and they definitely got flu from their Aunt, or gave it to their friend.
Then there are objections like “What about measles / chicken pox / insert other illnesses, people used to hold parties for the kids in the neighbourhood, in order that they would develop immunity early in life? They wouldn’t have done that if it didn’t work”.
Sorry, but behaving according to irrational beliefs that arose because an authority figure told you something, is very well established, as you might have noticed in recent years.
Anyway, too long a comment already. All other “pillar” of evidence is as corrupted, some of them so cleverly that it’s difficult to understand it, but be assured that they’re all fraudulent and very obviously designed to deceive people.
I am stating that my position is very well supported by extensive evidence and should not be set aside as mere opinion, equal in value to all other opinions.
Obviously, this is your article and I offer this comment respectfully because I know we are one in seeking the best approximation of truth and share the strong desire to do whatever we can to spike the guns of those who, very likely, intend to repeat their highly successful campaign of mass deception.
The Sept 2024 tweet by the now NIH director is concerning. Even though the words in the tweet don't specifically say what the Federal and State Govts' response would be in the United States, the statement presupposes that there is to be another 'plandemic'.
A question: how would he know that there is to be another one? Has one been planned, as Bill Gates' statement alluded to in June 2020?
Hasn't the NIH director learned from the mistakes made in 2021/21, e.g. social distancing, masks, jabs, closures, when he was a signatory to the Great Barrington declaration letter in 2020?
His tweet leaves questions unanswered about where he would stand if another plandemic were tried during his tenure at the NIH.