Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

James wrote: "Significant Psychological Toll From New Zealand COVID-19 Lockdown https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/11/..."

Now there is a great study, the implication being that those where SARS-CoV-2 is rampant and killing everywhere has NO mental stress? All those people contemplating suicide, but most of them were habitual contemplaters (83%). Of course the virus caused stress here, and if you were in the tourist business, much stress. So show me where there was no stress.

As for quoting Burke, exactly why are "good men" described as "those that agree with you"? I seem to disagree, so you think I am evil, do you? If so, you may get a clue as to why those who disagree by and large have stopped posting on this thread.

All that is needed is the slightest understanding of human nature and psychology to figure out this age of severe restrictions in the name of a (now proven to be) not-so-deadly virus will have massive psychological implications for humanity. And multiple studies are coming forward to already show this.

But, of course, for those Sheeple who are determined to cling to their mainstream media brainwashing, they'll always be able to find little pieces of evidence here and there that indicate "no damage has been done"...

Beau wrote: "James wrote: "The Sheeple World Order!"

The phrases 'new normal' and 'new world order' keep popping up. I've even heard elected politicians and other influential people use them.

I do sometimes w..."

It never ceases to amaze me how you guys are so paranoid about the new world order. Are you guys living in a SiFi book environment? It's all fiction! I think DT is part of your core and the Q-anon conspiracy. All bunk and no substance to it. Wake up this is not a fairytale, and be part of the real world, not some fluff of someones imagination.

It never ceases to amaze me how even a very low level chance of dying to some virus or any disease triggers modern day Sheeples into paranoid fears and a willingness to forgo almost any amount of freedoms. I blame our modern materialist and often atheistic culture which has disconnected from death and forgotten it's a part of life (including the life beyond this, which ALL cultures on Earth before ours always knew). So I think the Elites know how to reach these fears...fears that just didn't exist in older civilizations

Meanwhile GR, I haven't seen anyone in this group referencing Q-Anon and it's certainly not something I personally believe or have even researched. I have however seen a lot of non-conspiratorial academics extremely concerned about the additional powers being given to governments in this era (history doesn't bode well anytime governments get this much power). So you trying to paint anyone who criticises the current reaction to the virus as something like Flat Earthers, reveals just how outta touch you are... Stop watching mainstream media, would be my advice, it's rotting your brains with all the propaganda and fear mongering...also, if fearful about death, then start meditating and going within and face death now head on - there is nothing to fear, which again every group of people on the planet before us always knew.

James wrote: "It never ceases to amaze me how even a very low level chance of dying to some virus or any disease triggers modern day Sheeples into paranoid fears and a willingness to forgo almost any amount of f..."

Excellent reply, James. And I would add, for GR’s information:-
If you think The New World Order is fiction, I suggest you read Agenda 21 which is freely available to view on the internet.

As for paranoia, the latest issue of "Nature" mentions in passing that a significant number of people who recover from this "mild disease" (that happens to still be causing a disturbing number of deaths world wide) then start to develop psychoses about three months later. The virus is known to attack the brain/nervous system, so it is reasonable to attribute the virus as a cause, but I guess we have to wait to see the full effects

Ian wrote: "James wrote: "Significant Psychological Toll From New Zealand COVID-19 Lockdown https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/11/..."

Now the..."

I’ve come across you in 2 different groups and a variety of threads, Ian, and I certainly don’t think you’re evil. Far from it, you strike me as a thoroughly decent and highly intelligent bloke.

IMO, this group explores the broader political and philosophical issues raised by the pandemic better than any other. It also asks the questions that the mainstream media have chosen to ignore – although many of them do now finally appear to be waking up to these hugely-important considerations.

As someone who opposes lockdowns and compulsory facemasks, I have valued speaking with likeminded people on this thread. What’s more, I have found some of the links posted and points raised enlightening.

The other group which we belong to is also excellent, and very balanced, but generally focuses on the mainstream practical considerations and nitty-gritty surrounding the virus.

If it’s any consolation to those who oppose what is the majority view on this thread, I was in a minority of one on a third group’s board, where active members were very much pro-restriction. I found them lovely people but my comments generally went down like a lead balloon :)

Differences of opinion are great. Let's hope we remain free to express them.

GR wrote: "Beau wrote: "James wrote: "The Sheeple World Order!"

The phrases 'new normal' and 'new world order' keep popping up. I've even heard elected politicians and other influential people use them.

I d..."

GR! Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water.

Part of me thinks and hopes that the worldwide lockdowns have simply been a case of herd stupidity and that there is no hidden agenda. However, I can't escape the feeling that something smells a bit fishy about it all.

Why would governments, who normally accept 'collateral damage' to maintain the status-quo and the global economic system, introduce such extraordinary measures, which have destroyed so much, to keep people ‘safe’ from a flu-like virus, which has killed 1/7600 of the population?

Even discounting some of the compelling points made on this thread, it just doesn’t add up. Question who gains from the ‘new normal’, in terms of money and power, and we might get closer to the truth.

Beau wrote: "GR wrote: "Beau wrote: "James wrote: "The Sheeple World Order!"

The phrases 'new normal' and 'new world order' keep popping up. I've even heard elected politicians and other influential people use..."

Exactly ! ‘Cui Bono?’ Should always be the first question when it comes to motive - and it is certainly not the general public suffering under these draconian governmental measures around the world who are benefiting in any way,

Beau wrote: "Even discounting some of the compelling points made on this thread, it just doesn’t add up. Question who gains from the ‘new normal’, in terms of money and power, and we might get closer to the truth...."

Stop this silly theorizing, Beau!!! FFS mate, grow the hell up and follow the facts!

Here's the bottom line: Obviously YOU need to be muzzled, locked down, vaccinated and microchipped for a virus with a 99.78% survival rate!

In the words of Biden (muffled voice, as he was wearing a mask at the time like a good boy): "C'mon, man!"

Ian wrote: "If so, you may get a clue as to why those who disagree by and large have stopped posting on this thread..."

Dear Undergrounder,

You have reached the Complaints Department for Underground Knowledge.

Here in the Underground we treat all complaints very seriously and thank you for your feedback.

Rest assured our team have carefully researched the nature of your complaint.

Unfortunately, in this instance, we have deemed your complaint to be UTTERLY IRRELEVANT!

Yours sincerely,
The Underground Complaint Department

🥰🥰🥰🥰😋

Seconded!

James wrote: "Beau wrote: "Even discounting some of the compelling points made on this thread, it just doesn’t add up. Question who gains from the ‘new normal’, in terms of money and power, and we might get clos..."

No, no, I completely agree with your stance on this, James. You're right about the horrific bottom line. But it's still important to question governments' motives and their abnormal priorities on the issue by asking who gains from it. Answer - big tech, big pharma and the already wealthy elite.

Once we know who gains, we can see WHY they're behaving so strangely on the corona issue, compared to past dangers, and why they're becoming so obsessed with control.

It goes without saying that I don't like it one bit.

As I said before, the only other logical explanation is herd stupidity, caused by following a select few scientists instead of wider expert advice. The reason I'm clinging on to this explanation is because it's a far less frightening one.

Beau, I was agreeing with you and being sarcastic and pretending to be a Sheeple. Hopefully that was all understood?

Also, I wouldn't personally focus at the political or governmental level of each single nation...Orders are coming from a million miles above that surface level, if you get me

"global orders, riding over borders"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHn6...

James wrote: "Also, I wouldn't personally focus at the political or governmental level of each single nation...Orders are coming from a million miles above that surface level, if you get me

"global orders, ridi..."

Oh sorry, James. It's been a long day today with too much computer time. Having said that, even when I was typing my response out, I was still full of support and admiration for you lol :)

Regarding the orders coming from above government level, I've never been in any doubt about it. Anyone who thinks that the highest level of power is visible to the public is naive in the extreme.

Okay, cool, just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was actually being rude :)

James wrote: "Okay, cool, just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was actually being rude :)"

No, certainly not. Anyway, I completely agreed with your post. Excellent response from the Complaints Department too lol.

Right, log off time for me now. Can't decide whether to unwind with alcohol or exercise.

Beau wrote: "Right, log off time for me now. Can't decide whether to unwind with alcohol or exercise..."

Booze can be a form of exercise...it works the gut!
And in 2020 sometimes it feels appropriate!

Beau, when a crisis comes, governments either have to do something or decide to ignore the crisis. A fast decision can get the best solution, or the worst, depending on what it is. A slow decision, or trying to get the best of both worlds, gets the worst of both.

My case for a lockdown is that here, done hard and fast, for a population of 5 million, we have had 25 deaths, most of which happened in the first week or so before the lockdown took effect. Now, apart from the tourist industry, life is surpisingly back to normal, and from memory only 5 weeks weere required for a full lockdown. Apart, possibly, from Taiwan and Japan, who have done better?

Once before, I raised the question, what value do you put on life? Which comes down to, how much money would it take to persuade you to take a 50-50 bet between money or a guaranteed death, say from exposure to pneumonic plague? If you value your own life, why blandly accept other deaths as collateral damage? And there are currently plenty of other deaths, and there will be plenty more.

James, your committee vote exactly supports a point I made earlier.

Anytime we're presented with opportunities to exchange our freedoms for "safety" —don't we all need to see if the juice is worth the squeeze? A near 97% survival rate is not worth this level of draconian government overreach.

I totally agree

Hi Carmen, it's more like a 99.7% survival rate. And I agree, the draconian measures are nowhere near worth the benefit or perceived benefits of protecting against this hyped up virus. We just gotta learn to live with it, like all the others. Anyone who cannot see that by now this deep into 2020 really should be questioning how much common sense they have, if you ask me.

Ian J Miller, che cazzo si sta! The 25 deaths, 17 "of Covid", the rest "with it" happened during lockdown not before it, numbers 24 and 25, in late August. Please be accurate!

Debby wrote: "Ian J Miller, che cazzo si sta! The 25 deaths, 17 "of Covid", the rest "with it" happened during lockdown not before it, numbers 24 and 25, in late August. Please be accurate!"

Sorry, I meant most of the infections leading to the deaths occurred before the lockdown commenced. It takes a while between infection and death.

Numerous studies are being conducted by psychiatrists globally at present, so expect a lot worse news on the mental health front as more comprehensive longer-term studies are conducted...

Covid: Lockdown had 'major impact' on mental health https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54616688

p.s. Scarier version is mental health damage, as severe as that is, is actually just a fraction of the overall damage the Rona Overreaction will ultimately cause society.

Don't forget to keep track of the mental health of those who have been infected. The Nature paper I mentioned points out the development of psychoses, however, if we are just going to mention depression, and if your 99.7% recovery rate is true, and if we accept the total deaths in the US, then about 80 million have been infected, so they have to be separated from the rest wrt to their mental health. The infected may have their mental health problems because of the virus, not because of something else.

Ian wrote: "Don't forget to keep track of the mental health of those who have been infected. The Nature paper I mentioned points out the development of psychoses, however, if we are just going to mention depre..."

And I'm sure a PR agent working for a battery chicken farm could always find a study that somehow supports the "theory" that chooks kept in a one foot by one foot cage and otherwise ill-treated have been mentally unscathed...

Ian wrote: "Beau, when a crisis comes, governments either have to do something or decide to ignore the crisis. A fast decision can get the best solution, or the worst, depending on what it is. A slow decision,..."

Ian, on your value of life and collateral damage points, as the debate’s been going on for a long time and a lot of my posts are way back in the thread, I’d like to very briefly clarify my opinion.

I oppose lockdowns because I believe that the number of deaths caused by them through missed treatments, mental health and economic fallout will dwarf the number of corona deaths. No talk of my desire for money, no talk of collateral damage, just a simple wish to minimise the death toll.

My only mention of collateral damage and being motivated by money is when examining policy makers’ decisions to lockdown. THEY have always accepted collateral damage (unintentional death) to maintain their status quo and economic system (see WW1, Iraq War, economic austerity and more), so why are they happy to throw the whole system under the bus for a relatively minor illness now?

Their official explanations simply don’t add up. ‘New normal’, anyone?

Ian wrote: "Don't forget to keep track of the mental health of those who have been infected. The Nature paper I mentioned points out the development of psychoses, however, if we are just going to mention depre..."

It sounds to me like coronavirus PLC’s marketing department is going into overdrive. Now people are waking up to the 99% + survival rate, the scaremongers appear to be redoubling their efforts to get everyone to bow down before their false god, covid. These sorts of studies are little more than hearsay and less enlightening than medieval superstition.

If ANYBODY who has caught corona has gone on to develop psychosis, how about this for a simpler explanation…

The world’s population has endured 9 months of irrational hysteria, bordering on psychological warfare, to convince them that this virus is a likely death sentence. Therefore, I’m not surprised that SOME people who have had it are feeling mentally out of sorts.

Fascinating stuff. Someone has just provided me with this link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...

Beau, contributors to "Nature" are expected to be able to back up their assertions with data, and if this is cherry-picked, unlike sources on the web, they are not invited back. It may be the article is wrong, but you have to show it is; that is how science works. In due course we shall have better statistics. As for your last para, post 1083, agreed, but the question then goes back to how you get your data. That some got mental illness is not surprising because some do all the time. What we need is the number expected during ordinary times, the number during these times, and of that latter set, how many had been infected and how many had escaped. We shall have to wait and see, but the warning is that if you want to consider the effects of the virus, do not restrict yourself to deaths. If the survivors do not recover completely, there is a second set of reasons to prevent people from getting infected.

As to economic reasons not to have lockdowns, you cannot carry out an economic analysis without including the economic effects of deaths and the inability to properly carry out your job if you do recover. Of course there is an economic cost to lockdowns, but there is an economic cost to not locking down and letting the virus run. The question then is, what is the greater cost? Again, we have to wait for data, but the evidence from China, Taiwan, South Korea, and here is, when comparing to the US and Europe, my rouvgh analysis suggests lockdowns are better economically when integrated over sufficient time. Come back in two years time to verify.

Ian wrote: "Beau, contributors to "Nature" are expected to be able to back up their assertions with data, and if this is cherry-picked, unlike sources on the web, they are not invited back. It may be the artic..."

FFS - the whole COVID thing is a scam - there is no feckin virus !!!

Anni wrote: "Ian wrote: "Beau, contributors to "Nature" are expected to be able to back up their assertions with data, and if this is cherry-picked, unlike sources on the web, they are not invited back. It may ..."

Therein lies a great analysis of the data!

Ian wrote: "Beau, contributors to "Nature" are expected to be able to back up their assertions with data, and if this is cherry-picked, unlike sources on the web, they are not invited back. It may be the artic..."

Like Nature's fantastic unbiased work on vaccines :))))

I realize your heart is in the right place and that you believe you're bringing rational thinking to this thread by being a scientist...And that you think everyone else is falling for pseudoscience...

However, you cannot understand these modern scientific/medical issues, Ian, by only studying science in myopic fashion without considering the untold influencing factors that skew the research. There are soooooo many non-scientific influences that are compromising what we naively call "science"... Your extreme form of myopia on this subject and your isolated way of assessing this subject is the issue here ... For example, for most of this year in this group you have dismissed all those who say there will be untold deaths and extreme damage to society from the lockdowns and other restrictions... It's obvious you formed beliefs about this early on, without considering any contrarian research or even human nature itself... And so instead, you keep ONLY posting scientific analysis (much of which has since been proven to be wrong like your original stated belief that it had a whopping 5% death rate which would have made it one of the worst viruses in history -- whereas in reality as I think you now realize the death toll is somewhere around only 0.2-0.4% in the influenza range, about 20 times less deadly than you and the likes of the corrupt London Imperial College originally stated it to be -- and let's not forget those extreme and alarmist expectations of the death rate is what forced politicians to lockdown in the first place)

I've come across many old school scientists like yourself who just trust all is basically in order for trustworthy scientific research to occur without agendas -- and frankly that belief you have requires a LOT of faith in all the authorities and politicians closely associated with the scientific establishment in 2020 (who stand to gain from certain outcomes of scientific research)...

Conversely, I worked with a team of medical scientists, doctors, nurses etc over many years who helped compile the research for my co-written book Vaccine Science Revisited: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? -- and this scientific research team have the opposite view to yourself of modern scientific research - And I'll point out these were all MEDICAL doctors/scientists, unlike yourself e.g. one doctor who helped with this book had given 10,000 vaccines to kids on several different continents before he finally saw the truth of how vaccine research is skewed and there is a MASSIVE problem. Not that our book is anti-vaccines, but it just highlights (from thousands of studies listed) how so much important research has been buried in favour of the prevailing narrative of vaccines being extremely safe and there's nothing more to discuss... And there are strong parallels here between the one-dimensional analysis of vaccines that exists in the modern medical establishment and Covid-19 data analysis, especially with regards to the extremist scientific/anti-scientific (take your pick) narrative surrounding this virus.

I really wish modern scientific research was done as you assume it is i.e. in a very isolated safe way without any conflicts of interest or biases, a bit like how it used to be many decades ago... In reality, there is "fake science" just as there is fake news...And to comprehend much about modern medicine especially the virus, we need either generalists or else large think tanks with a mixture of thinkers from scientists to philosophers, to human rights experts to political analysts to financial experts etc etc. That would be the only way.

So unfortunately, much of the scientific establishment has become not only extremely dogmatic, but also highly politicized, corporatized, and is financially compromised that lead to untold biases...e.g. Harvard Medical School is a fantastic example of this where 80% of that school's funding comes from Big Pharma companies. And so as a result of all those seeking to hijack scientific institutes and formerly trustworthy establishments, much research has literally become anti-scientific and psuedoscientific especially in regards to banning/deplatforming any scientists with minority opinions (again, REAL science would embrace scientific contrarians so it can test what is truth).

What I'm seeing from all your posts is a lack of awareness of these issues that are manipulating "science" in evil fashion. All I'm seeing is myopic scientific analysis as if there are no outside influences - you're trusting the "scientific process" without realizing the myriad of ways that process can be hijacked.

Therefore, you're in exactly the right group, Ian, as "underground knowledge" is exactly what's needed as you won't see many of these truths reported in Mainstream Media.

Again tho, I really do wish the utopian version of scientific research you believe exists, actually did exist - that could even lead to a utopian civilization and at the very least your idealistic version of this (even if presently fanciful and naive) is certainly something we should aim for...Actual science without dark, negative influence would be a dream for humanity.

Unfortunately it takes a mainstream person to draw attention to something alternative researchers have been saying about these tests since about April...

Tesla's Elon Musk tests positive -- and negative -- for virus https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronav...

LOS ANGELES -- Tesla founder Elon Musk says he has tested positive for the novel coronavirus while also testing negative, offering a skeptical view of the validity of the procedures.

In a series of tweets early Friday, Musk said he had conflicting results from rapid "antigen" tests for COVID-19 after he had "mild sniffles & cough & slight fever" in recent days.

"Something extremely bogus is going on. Was tested for covid four times today," he wrote. "Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse."

Ian wrote: "Anni wrote: "Ian wrote: "Beau, contributors to "Nature" are expected to be able to back up their assertions with data, and if this is cherry-picked, unlike sources on the web, they are not invited ..."


@ Ian
See my letter to Boris Johnson re. the validity of the existence of the so-called ‘coronavirus’ Covid 19 :-

“I have not had an acknowledgement or reply to the same, and without the requested full scientific evidence of the existence of, and specific disease-causing nature of Covid 19, it becomes legal proof that there is no such evidence, therefore the Covid19 virus and all related legislation becomes null and void.

The Minister for Mental Health has had over two weeks to respond, so from now on I cognise that the ‘Covid19’ virus has not been isolated in a laboratory, in which case there can be no vaccine produced to confer immunity - as is the case with another example of coronavirus - namely the common cold.

Anni, politicians frequently do not reply. That does not mean there is no virus.

The scientific literature contains means of isolating it, its genetic code, and I believe, a structure determined by diffraction. I have not bothered to read them, but there is no doubt the virus exists

James wrote: "Unfortunately it takes a mainstream person to draw attention to something alternative researchers have been saying about these tests since about April...

Tesla's Elon Musk tests positive -- and ne..."

James, if you read carefully, you will see that he had an antigen test, not the pcr test, which is supposed to be definitive. The antigen test is prone to false positives because it looks for viral fragments, and is capable of picking up fragments of other coronaviruses, which is why I was critical of estimates of IFRs and the claims SARS-CoV-2 was around about 9 months before there were any cases in China.

James Morcan, although I don't usually rate Elon Musk, that's really interesting!

Ian J Miller, here in NZ, politicians reply though in the case of the current government, it's along the lines of "your views are noted, now naff off"!

Debby, politicians here do NOT always reply. When the durene supply agreement freely entered into by the government was torn up by said government, I wrote to three Prime Ministers asking why. They did not reply. (This cost me my future, and in answer to anyone else who did not know, going to Court was impractical because at the time contingency law suits were banned here.)

Ian J Miller, I see your point. To be honest the last 'answers' I got were from the secretary telling me that the PM would reply 'in due course' (actually never)

Debby wrote: "Ian J Miller, here in NZ, politicians reply though in the case of the current government, it's along the lines of "your views are noted, now naff off"!"

Hey Debby - Reminding you freedom of speech (unless it's hate speech) applies in this group and all views are welcome...

Lance Morcan, I think you have misunderstood me! I was quoting political secretaries' responses to enquiries, not telling anyone here to naff off!

Lance wrote: "Hey Debby - Reminding you freedom of speech (unless it's hate speech) applies in this group and all views are welcome......"

Even hate speech is okay in my books, as freedom of speech is an all or nothing thing...

@ Ian - you want some real science?
See below:

The Deception of Virology & Vaccines | Why Coronavirus Is Not Contagious, by Jeff Green
Posted on 25th March 2020 by The Bernician
Full article and references on the following link:

https://www.thebernician.net/the-dece...

This article nails to the mast the fraudulent claims being used to justify the indefensible.
It goes to the heart of virology and vaccination itself and what vaccination is propped up by – the entirety of virology and vaccine science is predicated on one thing—that viruses are infectious agents that cause disease.

Without this theory, vaccines would not be ‘effective’ or ‘work’ in the minds of the people.
Without the virus theory, vaccines would crumble like a house of cards.
This article will show the pseudoscience behind the theories that prop up virology and the vast problems with it.

Viruses Are Not Living Organisms
Firstly, viruses are not living organisms or living microbes.
They do not have a respiratory system, nor do they have a nucleus or digestive system.

Viruses are not alive and viruses are not contagious.
The fear behind Coronavirus, for instance, is wholly unwarranted.
Forget everything you think you know about viruses and bacteria. You have been lied to.

​The science of virology is based upon the study of viruses. However, no real footage of viral activity exists (except for a recently released (2018) short footage of an HIV virus which shows merely 20% of the virus theory process). Such footage is merely 3D animation and models.

Scientific Encyclopedia states viruses have been obtained for experimentation by means of extremely powerful centrifuges which must be specially built.
Viruses are so small that they average around 0.1 microns in size for a typical virus.​

Observation Of Viruses Is Inherently Flawed
Viruses are observed in cell cultures/petri-dish environments.
Cell cultures are grown in controlled conditions outside their natural environment, wherein cells are artificially kept alive by fluids that are toxic and do damage to cellular activity.
In such a sterile environment, cells cannot utilize the full range of their normal cleansing methods as they would in the human body.

​Those processes are:
Phagocytosis (and all of its processes)
Bacterial
Fungal
Parasitical
Viral (virus)

In the processes of phagocytosis, cellular debris and dead and dying tissue are absorbed and discarded for elimination out of the body.
It is bacteria that first and foremost carry out this process in large part—mainly as scavengers.
Fungus and parasites are called upon as needed in special cases, and in this process, small amounts of viruses may be utilized to accompany all other processes.
All of these processes are alive, but viruses are not alive.

In such an artificial environment wherein cells are kept alive but not healthy by serums, cells will degenerate, and their viral janitors will become prominent.
Viruses do not multiply on their own. When added to fertile petri-dishes that sustain cellular life, no additional viral protein structures appear.

Only when cells are added is there multiplication of viral protein structures. However, this is because petri-dishes are not the proper or healthy environment for cells, and so viral waste occurs.
This is because cells must manufacture viruses to cleanse themselves in such a toxic environment since they do not have access to the full range of their cleansing processes as would occur in the body.

Note: Viruses are necessary to dissolve dead and dying tissue when tissue is so toxic that living microbes cannot feed upon and eliminate those tissues, waste, and cellular debris without being poisoned to death.

​When Would Viral Activity Become Prominent?
As stated, viruses may accompany these processes in small amounts. However, viruses will only become prominent when all these other processes have been largely killed due to:
Environmental toxicity
Pollution
Chemical inundation
Poor air quality
Poor water quality
Poor food quality
Nutritional deficiencies
Wrong combination or choice of foods
Medical treatment, such as antibiotics and medications

When a body has a high degree of toxicity, bacteria feeding upon that toxic dead matter and tissue will be poisoned to death.
When the body is at such a point of systemic toxicity, where bacterial levels and all living microbes in the body have been diminished or killed due to the above reasons, the body will call upon the help of viruses to help cleanse itself.
When the body cannot utilize milder methods, such as a cold (usually bacterial), it will utilize the help of non-living protein solvents which are known as viruses. I will show why this is the only logical answer.

Viruses help consume and eliminate substances into small particles that can then be expelled via mucous membranes, out through the skin, or through the intestinal tract.
Cells produce viruses when their tissues are so toxic that phagocytes, parasites, bacteria, and fungi cannot help cleanse, repair and regenerate their tissues and fluids.

Science states, incorrectly without proof, that viruses originate outside the body, then ‘hijack’ the RNA or DNA of the cell, and then replicate whilst attacking cells indiscriminately.
If this were true, viruses would replicate endlessly, eventually attacking all healthy cells, but they do not.
We know that antibodies, a type of white blood cell, regulates the virus.
There exists no video evidence of viruses hijacking cells, except for 3D renders, and animations based on theory.

Further more @ Ian, re. the importance of recognising the Covid Virus Fraud as basis for the legal challenge to government actions :

People's Union of Britain v Matt Hancock | Application For Arrest Warrant Approved
COVID-1984 NEWSFLASH | The prosecution in People's Union of Britain v Matt Hancock has just sent the executed form, applying for his arrest warrant, to the court of issue.

We have already got the green light from the court's legal advisers and now we have the chief magistrates' permission to proceed. They also sent us the form to fill out for the arrest warrant, which has now been acknowledged by the same as having been received.

However, the form won't be processed till Monday, when it will be sent up to the crown court to be administered and then served upon Hancock, without delay, by the arresting officers, who will soon be appointed by the court.

Therefore, the case will now proceed as directed, unless the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] intervenes, which is unlikely because nobody will want to take the poisoned chalice.

However, even if they do, we can object on the ground that the DPP is working for the government, so they are obviously conflicted. If they refuse to back down, we will insist that the case proceeds with our legal team.

In other words, my family, friends and growing army of peace-keepers and freedom fighters, we are all about to witness the most significant events that have transpired on these shores, since Charles I lost his head.

This truly is our moment to seize the opportunity to build an advanced civilisation, on the rubble of the corrupted one, which is crumbling around us by COVID-1984 design.

In other words, fuck the great reset, the fourth industrial revolution and fraudulent debt based slavery.

In that new civilisation, we will protect the unalienable birthrights of the individual from the tyranny of the collective, to become truly self-governed under the Common Law, as expressed in Magna Carta 2020, an idea whose time has come.

From now until you see the arrest live-streamed on the mainstream and alternative media worldwide, let's make #ArrestMattHancock go viral on every platform, to the point where the People are chanting it in the streets nationwide.

Ian, I have a problem with the scientific input into the coronavirus debate for the following reasons:

1. Scientists are split on the issues. Governments have chosen to listen to the views of certain scientists, while ignoring other, equally-well-qualified ones. If you’re in any doubt about this, see The Great Barrington Declaration. This split applies to both lockdowns and facemask use. As James said, scientists have now become politicised.

2. When people vote, they vote to be governed by elected representatives, not by scientific committee. The UK Government have said all along that their policies are only determined by the science. If they want to pass the buck, then I expect them to act according not just to scientists’ recommendations but to economists’, psychologists’, sociologists’ and lawyers’ recommendations too. If I wanted to learn about a virus then I’d ask a virologist. If I wanted to learn how to respond to a virus, I’d listen to many other groups of experts too.

3. Again, a point made by James, some of the key scientists have previously been discredited for alarmist modelling. Why are these people still influencing policy?

4. The problem with the gold standard PCR tests is that governments have not exclusively used them when releasing their alarmist case figures. They have relied on less reliable sources of information too.

5. You mention acting hard and fast but also the need to use data to determine course of action. When immediate action is required, data, which is obviously unavailable, cannot be used. What we are doing economically is without precedent. Waiting 2 years is useless. Long before then, the damage will have been done. Point taken about the economic cost of the virus running free, but that is unavoidable harm; what we are doing now is catastrophic self-harm.

6. The most important point of all, raised by Anni, James and others – FREEDOM. Scientists cannot quantify it so many of them cannot understand it. Lockdown supporters’ attitude towards liberty is a stain on the memory of previous generations, who made the ultimate sacrifice to uphold our current freedoms, and a dereliction of duty to future generations, who will suffer now dangerous precedents have been set.

Anni, the only thing that stops me buying into the virus being a scam is that too many people would have to be in on the secret. Surely, someone would have leaked the information by now? However, I still find this argument more convincing than the ludicrous mainstream narrative.

Your post about the legal action is news to me but I’m delighted to hear that someone is attempting it. I would love to see Hancock, Johnson, Andrews et al stand trial in a Hague-like court for their crimes against humanity. As for our PM ignoring your letter, I wouldn’t take it personally. This disgusting creature even had the audacity to walk out in the middle of his predecessor’s House of Commons speech. Apparently, he models himself on Winston Churchill. History will probably judge him as more like Lord Haw Haw.