Three Point Takedown
Of the “Covid vaccines” - DATA, EXPLANATION and EVIDENCE intentionally omitted.
Intensionally Omitted
The supporting Data and explanations I have often presented. They may possibly be added here as links later but maybe not. They are not hard to source in many articles here.
Instead, to focus more clearly on the simple facts, this post poses the following question.
IF there were indeed clear supporting back-up for the three points in the takedown:
How would that change your attitude to the “Covid” event and the injections and other measures allegedly rushed out to protect us and allow “society to reopen”?
More importantly, how would that change your attitude to the actions of governments, in lockstep around the world: abandoning all previous “pandemic” plans to embrace the insane Covid protocols?
Do you think there may be other areas in which they may be operating in the interests of other than “their citizens”?
The Three Point Takedown
The “Covid Vaccines” were not health products.
1. They didn’t do what they’ve said they’ve done because it’s impossible. It’s a lie. You can’t make a baby in one month with nine women.
2. What they’ve said they did is axiomatically harmful (DATA SET) and could not be useful (EXPLANATION). I summarise this as “toxic by design”.
3. There was no new illness and no pandemic (EVIDENCE). The entire event was a psychological operation, long rehearsed.
Best
Mike
You can help me speak out by subscribing here (all monies to Tim) or to Suavek ‘s Fraud Prevention Hotline.
🤣🎭 PEER REVIEW PANEL 🎭🤣
(A completely fictional satire. Any resemblance to the pseudoscience of viroLIEgy is purely intentional…)
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: Alright everyone, welcome to today’s peer review. We’re here to assess whether this paper has proved the existence of a novel coronavirus virus. Gloves off, brains on… theoretically 🧠✨
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Thank you. As you can see from Figure 3, we isolated the novel coronavirus.
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: Excellent. How did you isolate it?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: We mixed lung fluid, antibiotics, antifungals, starvation media, and monkey kidney cells together 🧫🐒💥
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER A: So… you didn’t isolate anything.
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: No no, you misunderstand. Isolation now means “putting things together.”
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER B: Ah yes, like isolating a giraffe by throwing it into a zoo 🦒🏟️
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: Please continue.
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: After poisoning the monkey kidney cells until they died 💀 we declared the cytopathic effect as proof of a virus.
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER A: Did you run controls where you poisoned the cells without patient material?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: That would be unethical.
🧧♂️ ETHICS OBSERVER: Unethical… to do science?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Exactly.
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: And how did you confirm the virus caused the cell death?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Because the cells died.
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER B: From antibiotics, starvation, toxic media, and mechanical stress?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Yes. That’s how viruses work 🦠😌
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER A: Did healthy samples undergo the same process?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: No, that would undermine the narrative.
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: Very honest. Continue.
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Here are our TEM images 📸 As you can see, the virus is clearly present.
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER B: I see grey blobs.
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Look again — we added arrows 🔺🔻➡️
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER A: Those arrows are pointing at the cellular debris of the monkey kidney cells you poisoned.
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Correct. That’s what the virus looks like.
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER B: Those same structures are revealed in healthy cells when exposed to the toxic exposures of your protocol.
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Only because the virus is hiding.
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: What about Koch’s postulates?
🧑🔬 ALL viroLIEgists (IN UNISON): OBSOLETE 😡🔥
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER B: Because they fail?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Because they ask for evidence.
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER A: Did you ever demonstrate the virus alone causing disease in a healthy host?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: No — but we injected the toxic monkey kidney cell culture directly into the organs of lab animals to prove poisons can be transmitted via syringe 💉🐀
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER B: So you poisoned animals, observed predictable injury, and called it viral transmission?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: That circular reasoning is the cornerstone of viroLIEgy.
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: And?
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: It’s peer reviewed.
🧧♂️ BIOSECURITY LIAISON: Before we vote, can this paper justify emergency powers, injections, and surveillance? 🏛️💉📡
🧑🔬 viroLIEgist: Absolutely.
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: Then I see no problems here.
🧑⚖️ REVIEWER A: But there’s no isolation, no controls, no causation, and no proof.
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: Correct. Motion to approve?
🧑🔬 ALL: APPROVED ✅👏👏👏
🧑⚖️ CHAIRPERSON: Excellent work, everyone. Another virus proven — not by evidence, but by consensus, arrows, and exhaustive avoidance of the scientific method 😌🔺🦠
Our research group has concentrated on point-3: There was no pandemic.
Our latest detailed proof (again!) is here:
Joseph Hickey, Denis G Rancourt, Christian Linard. Constraints from Geotemporal Evolution of All-Cause Mortality on the Hypothesis of Disease Spread During COVID. HAL open science. 2025, pp.421. ⟨hal-05123573⟩ https://hal.science/hal-05123573/
Abstract:
Large peaks of excess all-cause mortality occurred immediately following the World Health Organization (WHO)’s March 11, 2020 COVID-19 pandemic declaration, in March-May 2020, in several jurisdictions in the Northern Hemisphere. The said large excess-mortality peaks are usually assumed to be due to a novel and virulent virus (SARS-CoV-2) that spreads by person-to-person contact, and are often referred to as resulting from the so-called first wave of infections. We tested the presumption of this viral spread paradigm using high-resolution spatial and temporal variations of all-cause mortality in Europe and the USA. We studied excess all-cause mortality for subnational regions in the USA (states and counties) and Europe (NUTS statistical regions at levels 0-3) during March-May 2020, which we call the “first-peak period”, and also during June-September 2020, which we call the “summer-peak period”. The data reveal several definitive features that are incompatible with the viral spread hypothesis (in comparison with qualified predictions of the leading spatiotemporal epidemic models): • Geographic heterogeneity of first-peak period excess mortality: There was a high degree of geographic heterogeneity in excess mortality in the USA and Europe, with a handful of geographic regions having essentially synchronous (within weeks of each other) large peaks of first-peak period excess mortality (“F-peaks”) and all other regions having low or negligible excess mortality in the said first-peak period. This includes vastly different F-peak sizes (up to a factor of 10 or more) for subnational regions on either side of an international border, such as Germany’s NUTS1 regions on its western border (small F-peaks) compared to the NUTS1 regions on the other side of the international border in the Netherlands, Belgium and France (large F-peaks), despite significant documented cross-border traffic volumes between the regions. • Temporal synchrony of first-peak period excess mortality: F-peaks for USA states and European countries were almost all positioned within three or four weeks of one another and never earlier than the week of the WHO’s pandemic declaration. For a given large-F-peak European country, the F-peaks for all subnational regions rose and fell in lockstep synchrony but showed large variation in peak height and total integrated excess mortality. A similar result was seen for the counties of large-F-peak USA states. • Large differences in first-peak period excess mortality for comparable cities with large airports in the same countries: We compare mortality results for Rome vs Milan in Italy, and Los Angeles and San Francisco vs New York City in the USA, and show that there was a dramatic difference in first-peak period excess mortality between the compared cities, despite their having similar demographics, health care systems, and international air travel traffic, including from China and East Asia. We also examined data concerning the location of death (whether in hospital, at home, in a nursing home, etc.) and socioeconomic vulnerability (poverty, minority status, crowded living conditions, etc.) at high geographic resolutions, which support an alternative hypothesis that excess mortality in jurisdictions with large F-peaks was caused by the application of dangerous medical treatments (in particular, invasive mechanical ventilation and pharmaceutical treatments) and pneumonia induced by biological stress due to treatment and lockdown measures. Exceptionally large F-peaks occurred in areas with large publicly-funded hospitals serving poor or socioeconomically frail communities, in regions where poor neighbourhoods are situated in proximity to wealthy neighbourhoods, such as the case of The Bronx in New York City, and the boroughs of Brent and Westminster in London, UK. Taken together, our study represents strong evidence that the patterns of excess mortality observed for the USA and Europe in March-May 2020 could not have been caused by a spreading respiratory virus, and instead were due to the medical and government interventions that were applied and mostly killed elderly and poor individuals.