Oh, please, how much do they pay you to post this junk ?
The reason is obvious, so, this site is labeled as a bunch of lunatics
For everybody else:
covid is real, it is a cold/flu like illness that has a worse natural outcome that the "normal" cold/flu
you MUST treat it appropriately (this is the part missing) FROM the BEGINNING (not wait until your body is at criticl point)
The reality is that doctors HAVE NOT treated covid appropriately (medical malpractice/incompetence) and this has lead to people diying
I think that the idea that it doesn't exist is that it is a rebranding of the cold/flu and not actually something too new.
It is very hard to find data, for example you might find this set of data (data.cdc.gov) but where is 2010-2020 to compare it with?
The expected outcome in my mind would be a compression of deaths; sick people dying at a higher rate means that they die off quicker than normal and then the "supply" of them returns to normal, meaning a slight decrease and then a return to the normal number of deaths. What we really need is something like the distribution of deaths by age so that we can compare that distribution even if the number of deaths is the same.
This data would put to rest any doubt that there was a very bad disease out there, and the data exists, so i'm guessing that it simply doesn't show what they want it to show. If you look back at what "lunatics" like Ike have said you will see consistency in their worldview, this is something you simply don't have from the "acceptable" sources.
The idea may be legit (until you have learned enough to read the studies for yourself instead of relying on YouTube experts), but it is amplified by influencers and bots in the recent months in a massive way that can barely get ignored. The no-virus theory is a win for everybody who has committed a crime (Cuomo, China, EcoHealth Alliance, Fauci: no virus, no crime), is used to divide us and to make us look stupid, and is used to bury all news about cures: no virus, no cure.
I understand what you are saying, but I think that saying that you "know for sure" is simply hubris, and if you look back through information that you thought was solid at the time ends up being incorrect.
For example, if you are a believer in the shot (i'm not accusing you of this) it is probably because of the efficacy/safety studies where it was 100% effective against symptoms and 90% effective against transmission. The people without critical thinking skills will pull something like "with new information we have new opinions", but if that is the case your statements should be risk analysis, not acting like you have facts.
(post is archived)