Well, it had to happen

Written by: Miri
November 16, 2023
 | No Comments

After seriously entertaining more or less the whole splendid compendium of 'conspiracy theory' out there, from aliens (are they real?) and astronauts (are they not?) through to Zionism (are ISIS Mossad?) and zoology (are pandas a hoax?*), I finally found a fringe theory I think is a shade of silliness too far...

(*For reference, the bracketed answers are: no, yes, yes, no... at least, as far as I have been able to ascertain thus far...)

That theory is: "the Covid vaccines aren't really dangerous. Nobody's been injured by them. Nobody's been killed. 'Died Suddenly' is an establishment psy-op to make truthers look stupid."

In case you were not aware, that theory is starting to gain some traction in the murkier corners of the internet, the "evidence" for it being that some anti-jab accounts use sensationalist headlines or exaggerations where it comes to "died suddenly" cases, and that - allegedly - proves that 'died suddenly' cases are not real.

Well, yes, obviously some accounts do exaggerate and use especially emotive language to get attention. It's called "clickbait" and huge numbers of content creators engage in it to increase their visibility and traffic, and that is true for all subjects you care to mention. This may not be a tactic that is particularly brimming over with integrity (it's not one I use), but it is, nevertheless and obviously, no sort of proof that the issue in question isn't real.

Knife crime, for instance, is a real and serious threat, particularly in big cities. Yet headlines like "KNIFE KILLERS TERRORISE LONDON" exaggerate the issue for attention. Most people in London aren't victims of knife crime. But to therefore conclude, "because some headlines exaggerate the extent of a problem, the problem doesn't exist at all" is a logic-free line of thinking that doesn't go anywhere.

Or rather, it goes this way:

Me: If the jabs aren't killing anyone, how come we all know people to have 'died suddenly', and the official statistics reflect excess deaths are going up and up?

Them: Anecdotes aren't evidence and/or you're lying and/or those people died from something else. The government statistics are fudged. Excess deaths haven't really gone up.

Me: So what, in your opinion, was the purpose of the world's governments spending billions on these injections, and engaging in perhaps the most aggressive and intensive propaganda campaign of all time, to get people to take them? Why such extraordinary pressure to take an inert product that doesn't do anything?

Them: There was no pressure to get them. I didn't take them. Anyone who did is thick.

Me: But I thought you just said they were harmless? So why would it matter if people took them?

Them: I didn't say they were harmless, they're poison.

Me: So they are injuring and killing people then?

Them: No.

That's the literal argument. It's makes no sense at all, and is sort of like saying, "alcohol doesn't make people drunk. If you think it does, you're just lying or naive. Many people drink alcohol and don't get drunk. Although alcohol has the capacity to make people drunk, nobody is actually getting drunk from it, and people who say otherwise are just grifting shills who want to sell anti-alcohol remedies".

Try pointing this out, though, and you will instantly get called every name under the sun ("grifting shill" being by far the politest example I could quote).

I think this position ultimately emanates from a woolly sort of thinking that has started to fan out at the farer edges of "conspiracy land", where people believe "the elite" just deceive us for no reason. That they dupe us and stage psy-ops and hoaxes just to mess with us, there's no particular rhyme or reason behind it.

This is never, ever true. The ruling classes are ruthlessly logical and everything they do, they do for a reason. That is why I am able to defend every "conspiratorial" view I hold - because, in fact, all these so called "conspiracies" are completely logical in terms of serving a purpose for the ruling elites.

"Why would the elites stage a pandemic?!" Normies scoffed incredulously, multiple times through 'Covid' - and, as we told them regularly and often, there are innumerable reasons:

*To scare you into taking a dangerous vaccine that meets their openly stated depopulation goals by reducing lifespan and subduing fertility;

*To control you through fear;

*To isolate you, which makes you both more controllable and more prone to illness and premature death;

*To scare you out of meeting people in person and "off the record" in favour of convening online where everything is recorded.

There are lots of reasons.

There are, however, no logical reasons why these same social strategists would propagandise billions of people, at immense cost, into taking a vaccine that does nothing to them.

That doesn't meet any elite goals.

While obviously some of the vaccines were placebos to create "plausible deniability" - e.g., a group of people legitimately able to say, "well, I've had the vaccines and I'm fine" - why would all of the vaccines be placebos? Why would governments spend all that money to inject people with a substance that does nothing?

Quite frankly, the argument that the vaccines protect people is more plausible than the idea that they do nothing. And given the argument that vaccines protect people has no plausibility at all (with even mainstream accounts admitting injections don't stop you contracting, or transmitting, "the virus"), well...

So, having determined that the "vaccines aren't really injuring and killing" theory is even less credible than the "pandas are really just men in furry suits" one (I still don't discount that entirely), we have to examine the other arm of this "theory", which is that people who push the "died suddenly" narrative are knowingly lying. They know people aren't really dying suddenly, but are pretending that they are.

And why would they do that?

Why, for the "grift" of course!

But how does saying people have died suddenly make anyone money?

Ah, because they're using that to push the virus narrative!

... Eh? But they're saying people died from a vaccine, not a virus.

Yeah, but they're still saying there was a virus.

Well, some are and some aren't. But whether there was a virus or not is a separate issue to whether people are dying suddenly from the vaccine.

OMG, I knew it! You're one of them! Shill! Grifter! Mason!

(And again, those are by far the most printable insults that these types tend to hurl.)

So, I think we need to address this "virus / no virus" issue once and for all, because it's become so toxic and tedious.

My personal belief, shared and restated on many occasions, is that there was and is no novel virus called 'Covid-19'. That, rather and instead, there were normal seasonal ailments like colds, flu and pneumonia, that were rebranded as 'Covid' for "pandemic" marketing purposes.

That doesn't mean people weren't really ill, or that they didn't really die. People get ill and die every year, and 2020 was no exception (but nor, crucially, was it exceptional in its death toll). So, if you say you were "the illest you have ever been" that year, that's quite possibly true, as maybe you had a particularly bad flu that year (and flu can make people feel like they're at death's door, and can indeed even kill, so this is not to belittle anyone's experience by labelling it "just flu"). Maybe EMFs were cranked up in certain areas, too, to make people feel even worse.

But I don't believe there was a novel virus circulating, creating the symptoms we were told indicated 'Covid-19'.

Despite this being my belief, I have been hounded many times by the "no virus" brigade, because they appear to believe I'm not enough of an evangelist for this cause.

"Yes, but do you tell everyone there are NO VIRUSES AT ALL!? That GERM THEORY IS A LIE?! That this is the BIGGEST CONSPIRACY OF ALL?! If not... shill! Grifter! Mason!"

I have in fact delved into this subject on a couple of occasions, and concluded that, indeed, the field of virology appears to be largely based on lies, and the conventional model of 'contagion' isn't how poor health is created or spread.

The thing is, though, when you strip it right back and look at how human bodies do communicate with each other, you find that the "virus / no virus" debate is ultimately more one of semantics.

Although (I believe) you can't "catch" a cold from someone, in the way you could catch a parasitic infection (parasites being alive and able to jump from host to host, viruses lacking this ability), you can be influenced by them, and your body can mimic what theirs does.

Just look at the word: influenza. It literally means "to influence". It's right there staring us in the face. The reason people who share a house, school, or office space often become ill at the same time is, when one person starts to go through that clearing out process - coughing, sneezing, temperature, etc. - their body uses energetic signals and frequencies to influence other nearby bodies to do the same thing. It's the same phenomenon that accounts for menstrual synchronising and why groups of friends often get pregnant at the same time.

So, even if you wholly reject the virus narrative, it still remains the case that being around other people who are going through seasonal detoxes will make it more likely you will go through one, too. Not inevitable, of course, but the "virus" brigade don't say it's inevitable you'll get "infected" if you spend time around someone with a so-called viral illness, either.

So actually, both camps agree that being around other people exhibiting symptoms of illness (or detoxes, whatever you want to call them) makes it more likely, though not inevitable, that you will develop those symptoms yourself.

Equally, whether you believe there's a virus or not, people exhibiting these symptoms require the same treatment: rest, fluids, vitamin C etc.

Of course, I agree one needs to be sceptical if someone is pushing the virus narrative to flog an anti-viral pharmaceutical such as hydroxychloroquine.

But if someone simply legitimately believes there's a virus (as many perfectly intelligent people do, including several very "conspiratorial" friends of mine), that doesn't automatically equate to them being lying, grifting shills - because most people who believe there's a virus aren't trying to sell an anti-viral product off the back of that.

Virtually everyone in the conspiratorial community who believes "there was a virus" also believes all vaccines are toxic, and that pharmaceutical products should be avoided as far as possible, in favour of natural remedies.

Virtually everyone in the "no virus" community believes that, too.

So what exactly is your quarrel and why has it got so vicious?

I know some mistakenly believe "the virus narrative is the biggest lie of all, expose that and the whole house of cards falls down", but this is patently completely false.

Even if we established beyond any reasonable doubt there are no such thing as contagious viruses or viruses that cause illness, the establishment would just change the kind of language they use to instil the same sort of fear.

They would talk in terms of bodies "influencing" each other instead of "infecting" each other, to promote the same idea that other people are still dangerous and could still provoke your body to develop symptoms it's too weak to handle (note that I don't think these symptoms, whether they come from viruses or toxins, are to be feared, nor do they require pharmaceutical intervention, which is the far more important message to get through to people).

The social scriptwriters have already changed the narrative on vaccines, no longer saying they stop you getting viruses, but that they merely "lessen symptoms" - so they could push this just as easily from a "no virus" perspective, saying "these wonderful injections don't stop you becoming ill, but they do mean the symptoms are much less severe when you do get ill" (just like they could sell a PMS remedy, saying "this won't stop you menstrually synchronising with your friends, but it will stop you feeling so bad") - which is, as I say, already what they do say about the Covid and flu vaccines.

So, quite frankly, I think the whole "virus / no virus" thing is one big, fat nothingburger that does nothing but provoke unnecessary spats between people who are otherwise very much on the same side.

Even though, to repeat for the million billionth time, I myself believe there wasn't a virus, and I don't think viruses jump from person to person causing disease. But even if you do believe that, the fact remains that nobody should fear the symptoms associated with what some call viral infections and some call detoxes, because they're either your body trying to kill the virus (for the "there's a virus" lobby) or trying to expunge toxins (for the "no virus" brigade). Either way, your body is trying to help you, not harm you, so there's nothing to fear (as I don't believe either "viruses" or "toxins" are the major cause of disease, but rather, the medical and pharmaceutical industries are).

People may claim, "but it was the fear of the virus that made people comply with Covid restrictions! If they knew there was no virus, they wouldn't have been scared and wouldn't have complied!"

However, this is clearly not true. People, overwhelmingly, didn't comply because they feared a virus. They complied because they feared authority, and were terrified of the consequences from said authority if they didn't.

That's blatantly obvious from the fact people went along with such ludicrous mocking nonsense as: enter pub with mask, sit down and remove mask, stand up to go to the loo and put mask back on.

Not one person on Earth who went along with that did so because they thought it offered them robust protection from a deadly disease. They did it because they were scared of being shouted at by the waitress if they didn't.

You can quite easily instil that kind of fear into the average obedient, fearful person with all sorts of things, you don't need "a virus". Other things will work just as well, such as: climate change, aliens, God, and so on and so forth (e.g., Muslim women in Afghanistan don't cover their faces and never leave the house in a bid to "protect themselves from viruses").

Leading onto the vaccine, the vast majority did not receive it because they feared a virus, but because:

*They wanted to keep their job;

*They wanted to go on holiday;

*They wanted to appease their family.

All far more commonly cited reasons than fear of a virus.

So, please, by all means, believe whatever you want about viruses - as I said, I have friends on both sides of the debate and I've never fallen out with any of them over it - but stop with the toxic social media vitriol which just demeans everyone involved, on an issue which I have come to conclude isn't actually that important, for the reasons I've outlined.

The far more important thing is to encourage people to cultivate their own courage and autonomy, and to realise that, yes, there are always risks in life and you can't mitigate them completely. Even if you eat a perfect pure diet and sit in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber daily whilst infusing IV vitamin C... you're still going to get ill from time to time. For otherwise reasonably healthy people, these illnesses (/detoxes) are nothing to fear and will run their course with no lasting consequences. If you're already in severely compromised health, then, yes, a bout of flu (/a powerful detox) could be implicated in your death, because these powerful processes might be too much for a body nearing the end to handle - but that's life, isn't it? We all have to die eventually, and from something.

Equally, it's worth remembering that many people indulge their vices regularly and live happy long lives.

Living life trying to always completely avoid risk, whether from 'viruses' or 'toxins', is miserable and ultimately pointless. You will die anyway. Take calculated risks based on common sense, experience, and your own priorities, and encourage others to do the same. Trying to force rigid dogmas on other people and condemning them as heretics (shills, grifters, Masons!) if they don't agree with you is what despots and control-freaks do, not people on the side of freedom.

So here's to personal liberty, autonomy, and the freedom to choose how you live, as well as what you believe. Isn't that what being in "the freedom movement" is all about?

But also, seriously, do look into the panda thing...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you. 

Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...

SubstackFacebookInstagramYouTube and Twitter (posting there as my other resource, Informed Consent Matters).

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:
[wpedon id=278]




[wpedon id=278]
©2024 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram