A point i often make is those now CONFIRMED to be harmed (to the point of death) from the lockdown policies (namely those with dementia) died the most 'involving' COVID-19 from March-June 2020 and there was no COVID testing taking place in care homes. Where is the proof these people died from a novel disease?
This is an excellent piece which must have taken a huge amount of time to research and produce, thank you. I’m concerned about the definition of Covid-19 which was and is still used to terrify people into compliance with lockdowns, jabs etc. (Bearing in mind that ‘Covid-19’, whatever it is, was downgraded by the WHO as a high consequence disease in March 2020. ) I understand Covid-19 as a relatively rare but serious consequence arising from SARS-CoV-2 infection, similar to the potentially serious consequences of flu for those who are frail and/or already unwell. Might it be more accurate to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the source of infection/deaths instead of Covid-19 which was/is no concern for the majority of people. And might we be perpetuating the Covid myth by failing to make this correction?
Yes a concise and important article highlighting the fraudulent methods they used , similar in England, the death data was carefully manipulated to hide the real reasons for the spike in deaths during lockdown which was 'harvesting' (culling) by the regime using various methods from not helping or treating people for conditions like heart attacks/cancer to actively murdering people using neglect and isolation, quaccines, midazolam, ventilators and psychological warfare which also led to many suicides Inc of children.
For anyone who is just starting to question the whole ‘covid’ narrative here are a few more things worth noting (and verifying for yourself of course).
Be warned, pulling at these threads will cause the whole thing to unravel!
More than a century of real world experiments (over 200) have failed to validate the theory of contagion. When healthy volunteers have been exposed to sick people and even been smeared with their snot and lung fluids they have not gotten sick. The theory of contagion remains unproven at best, and after 200 experiments it’s safe to say it is a DIS-proven theory. According to the science, colds and flus are no more contagious than scurvy - a disease which was also once considered to be highly contagious (it seemed self evident to everybody at the time). You can read about the contagion studies in Daniel Roytas’ recent book ‘Can You Catch a Cold?’, or listen to his interviews on rumble, odysee etc for free.
The field of virology has been debunked on its own terms using its own control experiments. The latest round of controls have been performed by Jaime Andrews’ Virology Controls Studies Project (find him on substack - all content is free). These experiments replicate the standard virology cell culture experiments which are the industry standard to ‘prove’ a virus, but in this case WITHOUT adding any purported ‘viral sample’ to the culture (hence ‘control’). Despite being sterile the cell cultures still yielded the exact same proofs of a ‘virus’ (CPE and electron microscopy images of so called ‘viral’ particles). These results prove the cell cultures themselves will yield so called ‘viruses’ whether a sample is added to them or not. This invalidates all claims made by virologists (because virology fails the most basic criteria for science which is falsifiability). Everything downstream from virology must therefore also be considered invalid too (the science of vaccines, viral disease, pandemics - all of it).
The model for ‘viral contagion’ which was used to inform government policy (ie lockdowns) at the start of 2020 was based on a 2017 experiment by the BBC, Cambridge Uni and LSHTM which simulated a ‘viral pandemic’ in the UK with the help of 30,000 volunteers from the public. Dr Hannah Fry presented the experiment which was also made into a TV show (‘Contagion! The BBC4 Pandemic’). She also acted as ‘patient zero’ (whatever that means) and supposedly spread a ‘virus’ to the volunteers at a meet up in the town of Haslemere, Surrey. Unlike the previous century of contagion experiments (see point 1), this experiment involved no biology whatsoever and was conducted entirely in the digital realm. The volunteers all downloaded a specially commissioned smartphone app and a ‘digital pathogen’ (whatever that means) was spread between the smartphones through the use of GPS tracking (basically track and trace). The data gathered from this experiment became (in their own words) ‘the new gold standard’ for pandemic modelling. So after a century of failed contagion experiments involving real sick people and their snot, the 2020 lockdown policies were based on an experiment conducted three years earlier, involving 30,000 smartphones apps and a ‘digital virus’. Coincidently, the first official case of ‘viral transmission’ within the UK in 2020 also occurred in Haslemere, almost as if the 2020 pandemic was replicating the 2017 experiment but being passed off as a ‘real’ pandemic this time.
Me too. Like a lot of people I (more or less) accepted the germ theory model by default at the start of 2020. I had no idea it was even in dispute. It took about a year before I was confident that it was pseudoscience (and I'm very open minded), so I have sympathy for people who struggle with the concept.
I now realise even Florence Nightingale argued that germ theory and the drug industry was essentially a scam 150 years ago. I now see germ theory as the radical and kooky position which requires all sorts of mental gymnastics and dodgy science to keep it propped up.
One silver lining of 'covid' is it's opened up this whole pandora's box and got everyone discussing the topic again.
But dismantling the official narrative ON ITS OWN TERMS (as you have done in this video) is just as important and valuable work, because a lot of people are not ready to question the entire disease paradigm all at once.
Superb analysis. Definitive.
A point i often make is those now CONFIRMED to be harmed (to the point of death) from the lockdown policies (namely those with dementia) died the most 'involving' COVID-19 from March-June 2020 and there was no COVID testing taking place in care homes. Where is the proof these people died from a novel disease?
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/breakingscottish-covid-inquiry-closing?utm_source=publication-search
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newcovid-deaths-at-the-scottish-covid
Nick Phin was also back at UK COVID inquiry 6 Nov 2024 stating the following as have several care home managers from the Scottish inquiry:
''Many of the people who actually developed COVID had many comorbidities and it may have been another cause that eventually led to their death.’’
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/breakinguk-covid-19-inquiry-6-nov?utm_source=publication-search
There is also a very good reason this has not been reported by any media in the world.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing
All those people left or induced to die for a lie, and few seem to care.
This is an excellent piece which must have taken a huge amount of time to research and produce, thank you. I’m concerned about the definition of Covid-19 which was and is still used to terrify people into compliance with lockdowns, jabs etc. (Bearing in mind that ‘Covid-19’, whatever it is, was downgraded by the WHO as a high consequence disease in March 2020. ) I understand Covid-19 as a relatively rare but serious consequence arising from SARS-CoV-2 infection, similar to the potentially serious consequences of flu for those who are frail and/or already unwell. Might it be more accurate to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the source of infection/deaths instead of Covid-19 which was/is no concern for the majority of people. And might we be perpetuating the Covid myth by failing to make this correction?
Thank you Valerie
I totally get the point - and is why I often write ‘COVID’ in quote marks
Whether is existed or now, whether viruses are real or not, one thing is sure. There was HEAVY misattribution of death along the way
Yes a concise and important article highlighting the fraudulent methods they used , similar in England, the death data was carefully manipulated to hide the real reasons for the spike in deaths during lockdown which was 'harvesting' (culling) by the regime using various methods from not helping or treating people for conditions like heart attacks/cancer to actively murdering people using neglect and isolation, quaccines, midazolam, ventilators and psychological warfare which also led to many suicides Inc of children.
Top notch analysis. Well done.
For anyone who is just starting to question the whole ‘covid’ narrative here are a few more things worth noting (and verifying for yourself of course).
Be warned, pulling at these threads will cause the whole thing to unravel!
More than a century of real world experiments (over 200) have failed to validate the theory of contagion. When healthy volunteers have been exposed to sick people and even been smeared with their snot and lung fluids they have not gotten sick. The theory of contagion remains unproven at best, and after 200 experiments it’s safe to say it is a DIS-proven theory. According to the science, colds and flus are no more contagious than scurvy - a disease which was also once considered to be highly contagious (it seemed self evident to everybody at the time). You can read about the contagion studies in Daniel Roytas’ recent book ‘Can You Catch a Cold?’, or listen to his interviews on rumble, odysee etc for free.
The field of virology has been debunked on its own terms using its own control experiments. The latest round of controls have been performed by Jaime Andrews’ Virology Controls Studies Project (find him on substack - all content is free). These experiments replicate the standard virology cell culture experiments which are the industry standard to ‘prove’ a virus, but in this case WITHOUT adding any purported ‘viral sample’ to the culture (hence ‘control’). Despite being sterile the cell cultures still yielded the exact same proofs of a ‘virus’ (CPE and electron microscopy images of so called ‘viral’ particles). These results prove the cell cultures themselves will yield so called ‘viruses’ whether a sample is added to them or not. This invalidates all claims made by virologists (because virology fails the most basic criteria for science which is falsifiability). Everything downstream from virology must therefore also be considered invalid too (the science of vaccines, viral disease, pandemics - all of it).
The model for ‘viral contagion’ which was used to inform government policy (ie lockdowns) at the start of 2020 was based on a 2017 experiment by the BBC, Cambridge Uni and LSHTM which simulated a ‘viral pandemic’ in the UK with the help of 30,000 volunteers from the public. Dr Hannah Fry presented the experiment which was also made into a TV show (‘Contagion! The BBC4 Pandemic’). She also acted as ‘patient zero’ (whatever that means) and supposedly spread a ‘virus’ to the volunteers at a meet up in the town of Haslemere, Surrey. Unlike the previous century of contagion experiments (see point 1), this experiment involved no biology whatsoever and was conducted entirely in the digital realm. The volunteers all downloaded a specially commissioned smartphone app and a ‘digital pathogen’ (whatever that means) was spread between the smartphones through the use of GPS tracking (basically track and trace). The data gathered from this experiment became (in their own words) ‘the new gold standard’ for pandemic modelling. So after a century of failed contagion experiments involving real sick people and their snot, the 2020 lockdown policies were based on an experiment conducted three years earlier, involving 30,000 smartphones apps and a ‘digital virus’. Coincidently, the first official case of ‘viral transmission’ within the UK in 2020 also occurred in Haslemere, almost as if the 2020 pandemic was replicating the 2017 experiment but being passed off as a ‘real’ pandemic this time.
https://odysee.com/@CoronaStudies:3/SMART-HEIST:7
The further we went into the ‘pandemic’ the more accepting I became of terrain theory over germ theory …..
Me too. Like a lot of people I (more or less) accepted the germ theory model by default at the start of 2020. I had no idea it was even in dispute. It took about a year before I was confident that it was pseudoscience (and I'm very open minded), so I have sympathy for people who struggle with the concept.
I now realise even Florence Nightingale argued that germ theory and the drug industry was essentially a scam 150 years ago. I now see germ theory as the radical and kooky position which requires all sorts of mental gymnastics and dodgy science to keep it propped up.
One silver lining of 'covid' is it's opened up this whole pandora's box and got everyone discussing the topic again.
But dismantling the official narrative ON ITS OWN TERMS (as you have done in this video) is just as important and valuable work, because a lot of people are not ready to question the entire disease paradigm all at once.
Anyway great work!
Do you support the below?:
Real Cause of Seasonal Flu & Pandemics
Detox Triggered by EMF, Toxic Injections, and Environmental Toxins
https://open.substack.com/pub/talknet/p/real-cause-of-seasonal-flu-and-pandemics?r=100zv1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Excellent work. Added to my digital archives.
Great work. Even after this time it's still shocking to see laid bare what went on. What's even more shameful is no one has been held accountable.
I wanted to leave a record of all the facts. Going to do same for 2021, 2022, 2023
And might do England at some point
Want it all out my hand and wrapped in a bow
there was NO pandemic
‘Pandemic’ …..
Forgot to add my link to an article I wrote in 2022 on how they manipulated the death data and coding in UK/USA with Palantir running the NHS data dashboards ICD coding manipulation and death certificate alteration rules amongst other methods https://open.substack.com/pub/callystarforth/p/is-ai-misleading-us-by-design?r=1eq51l&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false