The Great Viral Debate - Not!

https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/10/the-great-viral-debate-dr-rancourts-opening-statement/ 

The Great Viral Debate (Off Guardian)

Oh! I wondered from the email link if we were going to have a debate on ‘virus as the cause of disease’.

Which along with other issues is not actually debated but walled out from debate as ‘settled or weaponised dogma’ that is presented as power to protect against the threat.

I am not saying there are no threats or dangers or that what we are calling or assigning to viral expression has no role in disease conditions but that the narrative has become despotic and denying of open exploration – as well as serving as the basis for virology Inc Ltd (Big Pharma et al) and a 4th Biotech Global Security Solution.

When the underlying rigging of a system is left unquestioned, the only questions left are how to manage the system – which is always determined by those the system actually serves – not those its controllers claim to protect.

#2

I agree that the medical is a trojan pretext

Discussing within the narrative frame of a virus dogma is to perpetuate it.

But your posit of existence or not is a false frame for whether any such virus is the cause of specific disease.

If it is NOT, then the belief in the terrorist microbe is a false flag working a hidden agenda to cover for trouble much closer to home.

There is also room for discussion on exactly how the deceit is worked as the hijacking of selves or minds in terms of captured identity that then replicates fear as viral reaction. The deference to scientific experts is a blank cheque to being coopted into marketised and weaponised technologism - masking as science.

'Science' has been increasing captured and diverted into computer models that can be used instead of inconvenient or anomalous empirical data.

Restoration of empirical science as well as freedom to explore and debate would break the invested model. But such a breakthrough is needed.

The 'reset' speaks to me of a death cult determined to grow the control the old model gave by contracting humankind to fit into a computerised control system.

There is no living quality of wholeness to it, in it or from it.

#3

There are clauses in the G-B-D that I strongly disagree with - as I just posted to

https://johnplatinumgoss.com/2020/10/11/a-quick-blog-about-the-gbd/

It isn't just that it doesn't go far enough, but that it goes too far in the denial of rights to the older generation under pretext of safety and protection.

In resetting minds to new conditioned responses, the old have living memory and wealth of experience of what a natural order, now demonised as threat demanding control by state mandate.

#4

Ivor Cummings has a reputation and deservedly so.

If he questioned the novel discovery, its provenance and veracity as the cause of one pandemic disease, he would lose what he has.

If he questioned viruses as the pathogenic agent of disease, he would also lose what he has.

That is not to say he would lose everything or everyone, but I expect he initially bought the ‘science’ and has been seeking to operate scientifically within the narrative. But reason has no voice in an already active restructuring of society, economy and permission to speak – or think.