Pandemic or Scamdemic? 

Dr Ros Jones

Since early in 2020 debates of the aetiology and / or source of the ‘pandemic’ and the response have been a source of  ‘FACT-checkers’ zealotry and also a point of division amongst the many dissident writers. We have covered this topic before but there currently appears to be a more intense debate in the ‘dissident’ community about exactly what started it all.  HART has not been immune from this – see the comments below our recent Substack article on ‘What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?’ but a lot of the arguments seem to me to be not only unanswerable but also of subsidiary importance.

There are multiple challenges here around 

1. evidence that is rock solid but unpalatable or censored
2. important issues where the evidence is less clear
3. a desire to present simple narratives to make a case – even though that is what got us into this mess in the first place!

In early 2021, there was another split where some anti-lockdowners did not want criticism of the vaccines because they saw vaccines as a way out of lockdown, or sometimes because they (right, sadly) thought criticising the vaccines would get them silenced on everything. It is clear that was the wrong decision. Lockdowns were unjustified regardless and appear to have been used to exert initial control and thus create the public demand for the vaccines.

Unfortunately, it is easier to think you are achieving something when debating other dissenters than facing up to the fact that we are failing to reach the majority.

Are there areas that we do all (or mostly) agree on? 

Can we ‘agree to disagree’ on the rest? 

How much do the disagreements really matter?

Can we reintroduce some nuance?

Internal disagreement and debate is clearly healthy but not if it distracts us from whatever our main purpose is in continuing to unpick the ‘covid narrative’.

What follows is effectively a brain-storming exercise around the main areas of contention. Populating it with evidence favouring different viewpoints is beyond the scope of this article. Lively discussion in our Substack channel is anticipated! 

The Virus

We here assume four possible scenarios with subtexts, more or less in chronological order of coverage:

1. SARS-CoV-2 is a new coronavirus which mutated from a bat / racoon dog / pangolin in China and then spread to humans via a local wet-meat market;

2. SARS-CoV-2 is a new coronavirus which was manipulated by gain of function research in China / US and then accidentally / deliberately leaked from the lab / labs;

Whichever of these sources for SARS-CoV-2 is proposed, a new PCR test was apparently based on the genetic code of the above virus and was then rapidly approved by WHO, providing a test with a massive false positive rate, often then used at high cycle times with extremely poor correlation with ‘infectiousness’.

3. There was no new SARS-CoV-2 virus as such, but a circulating respiratory virus such as influenza was wrongly labelled by use of a deliberately manufactured PCR test to a spurious piece of genetic code;

4.  There was no particular illness circulating in early 2020 at all and the whole thing was a propaganda concoction coupled with a failure to accurately measure anything.

The Response

Regardless of which of the above 4 scenarios is correct (or indeed any other scenario we have failed to consider), the response (including lockdowns, social distancing, masks, loss of access to primary care and appropriate hospital care, plus widespread DNAR notices, excess use of end of life medications and population-wide use of gene-based vaccines):

1. Made everything far worse 

OR ‘The Response’ was the only cause of harm;

2. The gene-based ‘vaccines’ have caused huge harm and should never have been deployed to healthy populations 

OR gene-based ‘vaccines’ have no evidence of benefit and should never have been deployed at all; 

3. Blocking of repurposed drugs caused unnecessary deaths 

OR repurposed drugs were unnecessary as no actual epidemic existed.

It is surprising how much conflict remains over the first two given their overlap and the third one also could do with some nuance around particular individuals who were sick or dying. Sure, they might not have become as sick without bad policies like withholding antibiotics from community pneumonia patients and having effective treatments for the sick is useful regardless of any pandemic.

The Key Players

The international response was co-ordinated, playing out with the same phrases across the world:

• No-one is safe until everyone is safe
• For the greater good
• SAFE AND EFFECTIVE 
• The vaccines saved millions of lives and ‘allowed’ us to return to pre pandemic freedoms

1. This was orchestrated by over-reaching governments spurred on by conflicted scientific advisors and greedy pharmaceutical companies OR
2. This was planned for decades and was orchestrated by the military AND/OR
3. It was conceived by globalist oligarchs (Bill Gates, George Bezos etc) via international agencies (WHO, WEF, GAVI etc) AND/OR
4. The Chinese Communist Party orchestrated it, having infiltrated the WHO and other institutions globally.
5. A combination of the above

Priorities 

• We need a public acknowledgement of the level of vaccine injury, with prioritisation of (a) compensation and (b) research into treatment;
• There is an urgent need to remove mRNA technology from any prophylactic vaccination programme;
• There is an even bigger need to expose the levels of corruption and duplicity involved in controlling populations across the world;
• We need to withdraw from the WHO with its industrial scale and self-fulfilling ‘pandemic planning’;
• We need to end censorship and insist on complete data sharing for all drug trials;
• We need a total overhaul of drug regulators globally.

Strategies

Different groups will have different strengths in tackling the above priorities and different ways may be helpful for reaching different people

I have found the following flags have been helpful in waking people up to the seriousness of the situation we are in:

• re origins of SARS-CoV-2, email trails regarding deliberate silencing of anyone pointing to ‘Gain-of-function’ work, especially evidence of collusion to take this work from the US to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, China;
• Moderna had patented a section of genetic code several years before the ‘pandemic’ was declared;
• The failure to recommend even simple over-the-counter drugs like Vitamin D allowed the arguments for emergency use authorisation of vaccines;
• Widespread use of DNAR notices for care home residents and those with disability, linked to lack of GP and hospital care and consequent mortality;
• The speed of the clinical trials with loss of control groups within weeks, precluding proper assessment of safety;
• The failure to acknowledge the vaccine-injured and provide appropriate compensation;
• MHRA moving from ‘watchdog to enabler’ and drugs to market in 100 days cf air industry safety.
• Evidence that the more doses of vaccine you have, the more likely to get ‘covid’.

Generally unhelpful with family and friends or medical colleagues: 

• Any discussions of ‘deep state’;
• Any suggestion that there was no actual illness or that the harms were inflicted by NHS staff following dangerous protocols, especially if you are talking to people who are working in those same NHS institutions.

Does it matter

If the policies contributed significantly to the mortality – is that not the core issue?
When people have been killed by dangerous policies that were unjustified even if there was a virus, how much does arguing over virological hypotheses contribute?

Some authors such as Deborah Lerman, interviewed here on UK Column argue that it doesn’t matter whether there was a virus or not – if we are all in agreement that it was the response that killed people, then we need to be hunting for the origins of the response rather than the origins of the virus. 

Conversely, support for any lab-leak theory can be used by WHO and other global players to push more and more resources into ‘pandemic preparedness’ including constant searching for new viruses or variants which will then provide the basis for the next scare and rapidly push the world back into another over-reaction with testing and a rushed global vaccination programme.  We can already see the writing on the wall with PCR testing of livestock for avian flu, which has led to the culling of millions of chickens in US and more recently the UK despite no evidence of significant disease spread to human and of course already a new MRNA avian flu vaccine is on the horizon.  We can all see only too well the centralist control planned in the updated WHO regulations. 

Conclusion

At present we are still stuck with many imponderables, some of which may never be proven. We also need a way to encourage people to change their mind, which if heavily involved will become harder and harder.  I would contend that we should use areas of agreement as much as possible and simply agree to disagree on other areas. Otherwise we are in real danger of spending our time arguing in mediaeval style about ‘how many angels can be fitted on the head of a pin’.