COVID inversion

For the record.

The “inverse” version of events and concepts ofte produce curious novelty.

If we – as a thought experiment – look at Covid in its inverse version, it would come out something like this:

“a benevolent virus that is antagonistic to something that is infecting us.To prevent it from spreading, this something locks us down”.
 

Inverse definition: reversed in position, order, direction, or tendency.

Food for thought.

Take a moment to read this astounding piece by Joe Quinn. Full of facts, data, and amazing conclusions:
[link to www.sott.net (secure)]

"Despite government and health authority claims to the contrary, the accumulated evidence from the SARS-CoV-2 'outbreak' earlier this year points to it being no more significant than a seasonal 'flu-like virus' in terms of its infection and mortality rate, and that the significant death toll 'from Covid-19' is primarily due to the effects of lockdown."

"Conclusion and the $64,000 Question.
I'm aware that readers who may now be willing to question the official narrative about this viral episode will have more questions, and in particular the question of 'why?' If we can reasonably conclude that governments knew that this virus was no real threat and, indeed, little different to a seasonal flu in terms of infection and mortality rates and therefore no significant threat to anyone and not likely to 'inundate the health service', why did they pursue the policy of lockdowns with all of the disastrous and pernicious effects they would foreseeably cause?

It was clear from the beginning of this episode that the overt governments of this world were not in charge of Covid policy decisions, and these were being handed down to them by scientists and 'experts' under the aegis of the WHO. So to the question of 'why?' we must add 'who?' (no pun intended) and look further 'up' the hierarchy for the culprits. The problem with that is that, beyond the overt governments of this world there are merely faceless 'advisors' of different stripes and with different (and often competing) interests, so I have little hope of any real calling to account over this public health scandal.

That said, one thing I'm fairly sure of is that someone, somewhere, really wanted to stop the spread of this virus among the wider population to the greatest extent possible. The other thing I am very sure of is that their reason for doing so had nothing to do with the welfare of the ordinary people of this world."

Yes because thinking about a virus will change it FFS. It's beyond insanity.

Only in the matrix would that work.