IMO, the conclusion(s) that flow logically from these statements are all the same. My conclusions that flow from these conclusions are listed at the end of this essay.
***
If tens of millions of people had Covid between September 2019 and the end of February 2020 and nobody died from this disease, what conclusion would you make about the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of this new disease?
If, “officially,” more than one million Americans and 15 million people world-wide“died from Covid” - and almost all of them died after the lockdowns of mid-March 2020, the conclusion might be (must be) that this novel virus suddenly (and somehow) became ultra-contagious and extremely “deadly” after this date.
If a virus suddenly changed and became far more contagious and lethal than it had been in the first seven months this novel virus was circulating, what would you conclude?
If millions of Covid deaths began to be recorded after the lockdown were implemented and after new hospital and nursing home protocols were implemented, what would you conclude?
If a new diagnostic test, the PCR test, was used to proclaim the vast majority of people who tested positive with this test should be labeled a medical case, but most of these people had no medical symptoms, what would you conclude?
If you learned no employee at the 12,000-employee CDC had ever died from Covid, what would you conclude about the mortality risk this virus posed to this sample of random adult employees?
If you learned that no college or professional athlete has ever died from Covid, what would you conclude about the mortality risk this virus posed to these tens of thousands of athletes?
If public health experts said that 1-in-30 people (a 3.4 percent IFR) who are infected by a novel virus would die from this disease, what would you conclude about the number of CDC employees or athletes who didn’t die from this new deadly disease in the years 2020-2026?
If you knew Anthony Fauci told the public the Covid IFR was 1 percent, but in his diary said it was between 0.2 and 0.3 percent, what would you conclude about the credibility of Anthony Fauci?
If, beginning a few months after the roll-out of the Covid “vaccines,” more than 800 surveyed embalmers reported they were now routinely finding strange new white fibrous clots in the veins and arteries of the deceased, what would you conclude about a possible cause-and-effect correlation between the shots and the clots?
If you knew - in more than five years - no government-employed or funded scientists or physicians had investigated this never-before-seen phenomena, what would you conclude about these “scientists?” (See: “They KNOW.”)
If you were told “Case Zero” of Covid occurred in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, but you knew (from reading this newsletter) that hundreds of antibody-positive cases in multiple countries and more than 20 U.S. states had already been “confirmed” by this date, what would you conclude about the origins and real birth date of this virus?
If you were told or learned that the first “confirmed” Covid patient in America was treated at a hospital in Everett Washington in mid-January 2020, but an emergency room doctor at this hospital said he’s aware of no staffer who treated this patient, what might you conclude?
If you were shown a picture of a Wuhan man who collapsed on a sidewalk and (allegedly) died suddenly from Covid in late January 2020, but nobody knows anything about this man, what would you conclude?
If - by presumably February or March 2020 - CDC officials tested two tranches of archived Red Cross blood for antibodies, but didn’t report the results of this study to the public until November 30, 2020, what would you conclude?
If no corporate news organization in America reported any of the Covid facts I and thousands of other independent citizen journalists have reported, what would you conclude about these journalists and “news” organizations?
If “watchdog” “journalists” are supposedly the most cynical and skeptical people employed in any profession, and are especially skeptical of people who possess great power, would you conclude this description is complete bunk?
If you knew that millions of vaccinated citizens got Covid and then Rebound Covid after being fully vaccinated, would you conclude these shots were “effective” at preventing Covid cases?
If you know the above anecdote is true, would you conclude that the spike in Covid cases in the second year of official Covid proved this was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated?”
If millions of people think they had early Covid (extrapolated from Reader Comments), would you conclude every one of these people was wrong?
If millions of people believe they suffered a vaccine injury or believe loved ones died from their shots, would you conclude that every one of these people is lying or is wrong?
If almost 3,000 schools in the U.S. closed “due to illness” in the weeks and months before Covid was supposed to be spreading in America, would you conclude that any of these sick students and teachers might have had early Covid?
If, in the weeks and months before official Covid, doctors ordered many more flu tests than they had in previous flu seasons, would you conclude that there might be a reason for this change and that this reason might be “early Covid?”
If, except for Sweden and several impoverished Third-World nations, every government on the planet imposed the same lockdowns and NPIs - and all experts said the exact same things as all the other experts - would you conclude the Covid response might have been coordinated?
If no Swedish school children (or teachers) died after continuing to go to school in the early months of official Covid and most weren’t wearing masks or social distancing, would you conclude the NPIs and lockdowns weren’t needed at all?
(I’ve recently concluded my articles reach about 25 percent fewer readers than they did six months ago. I assume this metric would be even more deflating if I didn’t include the Share button with every article).
If America has approximately 4 percent of the world’s population but had approximately 15 percent of the world’s “Covid deaths” and “cases,” would you conclude the public health response in America was a preposterous folly?
If Anthony Fauci, the most prominent and revered scientist/public health official in the world, “took the Fifth” 111 times in a Senate Hearing and received a full pardon for any crimes he committed as NIAID director, would you conclude this man is afraid of being exposed as a fraud and of being subjected to criminal prosecution? (Would you conclude this is the Science you should trust?)
In the past six years, if only one prominent “talking head” (Stephen A. Smith) has apologized for vilifying Covid or shot skeptics, would you conclude that the thousands of other prominent pundits who have not apologized are too petty, hypocritical, duplicitous and cowardly to do the same thing?
If the Covid shots don’t work and aren’t safe for everyone, would you conclude other vaccines (like the flu shot) might also be equally ineffective?
If you knew the unvaccinated Amish are much healthier than the average American citizen (and didn’t suffer any Covid deaths), would you conclude the Amish might be smarter than the public health experts?
(I could go on and on, but since I worry that some of my articles are too long, I’ll stop here.)
Citizens with critical-thinking abilities should never trust the “experts” and public officials, who are proven liars and are extremely dangerous.
All important truth-seeking organizations are completely captured.
Officials will never investigate that which they do not want to “confirm.”
The world is being led by the obtuse.
The world is being led by pathological, serial liars.
The world is being led and manipulated by sinister people, forces and organizations.
The world’s real leaders or real rulers know they can easily con most of the people.
The world’s real rulers have no serious worries about being exposed because they know anyone who could expose their lies does not reach enough people and/or can be dismissed as another science-denying conspiracy kook.
The world’s real rulers know most members of a potential resistance force have been effectively corralled into media platforms like this one, which means critics are simply venting to ourselves.
As long as potential “threats” exist (people who could expose crimes against humanity), censorship and reach-suppression operations are not going to stop.
***
Author’s note: For space reasons, I restricted this partial list of “conclusions” to Covid topics.
That is, I didn’t itemize conclusions critical thinkers might have formed about authorized narratives involving, say, the war in Persia (or any “necessary” war), conclusions flowing from the Epstein saga, dubious or laughable economic statistics, other dubious health conclusions from the health field or the curious changes in Substack metrics I have previously quantified.
If trusted leaders lie about one significant subject - because they know they can - one can reasonably conclude they will also lie about other important subjects.
For example, If a freelance journalist like myself can easily identify at least 70 provenly-false or dubious statements promulgated by Covid experts, any honest critical thinker should conclude that nobody should believe any claim or statistic issued by these people.
I have also concluded that corporate journalists will continue to work in pack solidarity and citizens in all important organizations will continue to value and seek the “safety of the herd.”
Until, somehow, common sense becomes far more common or until one brave leader with exceptional persuasive abilities emerges, my conclusion is that the Captured Status Quo will not change.
On a more optimistic note, I would add that the detonation of one thermo-nuclear truth bomb might change this toxic Status Quo … However, I admit I’m not certain this result would happen, because we don’t have a case study where this has happened.
My main conclusion is that the world’s real rulers (the Deep State or Epstein Class), are committed to doing everything in their formidable power to ensure such a world-changing event never happens.
What we are living through here might be best described as a David vs. Goliath battle and, at least according to that tale, David did slay the giant.
I don’t know if that story actually happened, but if, once upon a time, some courageous person with True Grit did confront (and then defeat) a supposedly invincible adversary, I love the moral of that story.
***
(I’ve also concluded that for some reason my Substack ship is sinking, but until the stern dips under the water I’m going to keep posting while I still can. That is, I’ve resolved to go down posting.)
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.