Though the (inflated) fatality rate of the virus in whose name liberty has been abolished clocks in at around 0.2 percent, the horrific manner in which that fraction of a percent have died plays an outsized role in maintaining the present climate of compliance with “public health” protocols.
It goes without saying that reasonable steps must be taken to protect ourselves, and our fellow pilgrims on this earth, from needless bodily harm.
But what if the directives purporting to protect us were in fact arranged, objectively speaking—that is, laying aside the inevitable but terrifying question of willful malice—in precisely such a way as to maximize the harm of this “novel” pathogen?
Amazingly, what I have posed as an hypothesis seems indistinguishable from fact.
Consider, for instance, this study, published in November of 2020. Having reviewed the evidence available at that date, the author concludes that facemasks do nothing to stop the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.
Given the regime of coercion and psychological pressure with which the populace has been induced to muzzle itself, this would be bad enough. After reviewing the futility of the imposition, however, the study goes on to discuss the harms associated with prolonged mask wearing.
I will let the following chart speak for itself:
Meanwhile, this helpful article tackles the topic of how competent physicians ought to be advising patients to avoid contracting, or treat early cases of, the disease du jour.
A co-editor of this guide to home treatment of the ailment notes that the advice it offers has not only been ignored, but actively suppressed, by the powers that be.
In a nutshell, she explains, SARS-CoV-2, while possessing certain unique characteristics, is much like any virus in its fundamentals. Among other things, this means that the key to treating it is to interrupt its progress as early as possible, before it replicates within the body to the point where it becomes both deadly and difficult to combat.
By taking steps to maintain a healthy immune system, most of us can rest assured that we will be among those whose symptoms range from negligible to nonexistent.
As for those in higher risk categories, the guidebook suggests looking in advance for a doctor willing to prescribe the off-label but legal, safe, and effective drugs which have (despite propaganda to the contrary) proven highly effective at nipping this disease in the bud.
The desperate censorship and ruthless character assassination directed against those offering such life-saving advice only goes to prove that the authors of our present policies have anything but public health in view.
It looks much more likely that they are willing, if not eager, to see millions of lives destroyed or diminished if it helps them to achieve their inhuman schemes.
What do you think? Please comment, subscribe, & forward to friends!