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.
It's just that I don't like easy explanations for such complicated systems as our immune system. For example, I want to know what kind of antibody dependent enhancements are known and which of those are getting problematic for vaccinated people. I want to understand how they create chimera viruses and when it will become common knowledge, so that not only biology students can create new viruses, but everybody in mothers basement. I want to know how ivermectin works (there is more than just one mechanism of action).
I have spent hundreds of hours listening to medical lectures and reading scientific papers to become able to do this. In search of information I became aware that we are in the middle of an information war, information gets suppressed and red herrings get seeded everywhere. If then some YouTube expert tries to explain to me that virus isolation and sequencing is a decades old fraud because the whole worldwide scientific community is working for ((them)), I not only doubt his knowledge, I really doubt his motives (best case: clickbait, worst case: paid to take the pressure away from the bad actors).
(post is archived)