Coronavirus Questions: Perpetual Grift Engine? Virus of the Ignorant Unvaccinated?


  • Why is there no distinction – especially in testing – between SARS-Cov2 and Covid-19? The former is the virus, susceptible to antivirals and prevention measures. The latter is the immunological consequence and requires hypoxia and biochemical and immunological indicators (CRP, D-Dimer etc). Why are these still blurred together?
  • Heading towards the third year of the Coronavirus pandemic:
    • Why has there been so little emphasis and progress on testing?
    • Rapid testing, rapid results, judiciously placed, free of charge, have demonstrable benefits with no downside except cost to government. Why is there no coherent testing infrastructure?
    • Polling shows even the vaccine hesitant are not against regular testing (especially free home testing) which is a less disruptive, less bankrupting policy than adhoc lockdowns. Why is there no pandemic test-and-advise protocol in place despite governments arguing endlessly over mask mandates in schools, vaccinating children, etc?
  • Why have there been no substantial mask studies? Why has that been allowed to be a merely political rather than organized medical issue, regardless of which ‘team’ is in power? There should surely be no uncertainty about these basic issues. The next pandemic may be worse.
  • Why is an anti-viral like Ivermectin pilloried as a “horse paste” – in such a blatantly propagandist, divisive way – despite its clear usefulness as a prophylactic, where it simply does what it’s proven to do, BEFORE mid/late stage infections take hold?
  • Why would there be aggressive, partisan exclusion of ANY prophylactic that’s cheap and universal and proven safety record? Amplifying overdose victims is propagandist; never sincere.
  • Consider: vaccine gives (high estimate) 90% protection from SARS-Cov2, ivermectin prophylactic + treatment inclusion adds 0%-5% protection (i.e. it is useless or it is a bit useful). End result potentially saves tens of thousands of lives WITH the antiviral versus without. Where’s the medical logic in banning it? 
  • Some cite lack of quality data on anti-virals like Ivermectin as a reason for its aggressive exclusion from Sars-COV2 protocols. But then why wasn’t Ivermectin trial’d aggressively from early 2020, given it is cheap, readily available and proven to have an exemplary safety record in humans (e.g. against river blindness, dengue, etc)?
  • Why is government official guidance allowed to devolve into such useless disingenuous binaries? Vaccine versus anti-viral is a case in point. It’s not an either vaccination or antiviral/alternative treatment. Excluding doctor-patient informed free choice makes fait accompli of outlier overdose while excluding billions (including those with no vaccine access).
  • Why is Merck putting billions into researching a new prodrug antiviral patented version of ivermectin, when it produces Ivermectin already and could easily have done both? What other explanation can there be for not promoting existing treatments except profit chasing despite the human cost?
  • Why is AstraZeneca vaccine not available in the US, even after its proven safe, used in comparable countries with better Coronavirus outcomes, and – especially from Summer 2021 – data shows the vaccine antibody response last considerably longer than the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA shots?
  • Why is there so much pressure on the vaccine hesitant, but never even an offer of free aftercare in the event of adverse reaction? Why is there no quid pro quo support for workers who submit to testing and adhere to restrictions if infected (e.g. self-isolating), to cover loss of essential earnings?
  • Given the vaccination objective is to get the immune system to work up antibodies against exposure to Sars-COV2, why’s there no tracking of antibody response in those who’ve been vaccinated, those who’ve recovered from Covid-19, etc? Shouldn’t that be the basis for vaccine need? Wouldn’t it also create a non-judgmental way to encourage vaccine hesitant to get the shot?
  • Given all the talk about poorer countries and vaccine availability, why is it left to non-mRNA vaccines to cover most of the developing world’s supply? Why is there media silence on this?
  • Does the public even know about the relative vaccine per-dose cost? Does that add up, vis-a-vis authentic public discourse?
  • The initial vaccine trials, especially for Pfizer and Moderna, showed almost 100% efficacy but the real world has revealed lower efficacy and decreasing efficacy just 6 months into vaccination programs. Why is this acceptable, when non-mRNA vaccines don’t degrade this way?
  • The trial efficacy numbers for the vaccine phase 3 were extrapolated from, ultimately, just a few dozen cherry-picked subjects. How does  efficacy factor in time and viral load, i.e. spending more time coming into contact with SARS-CoV2, being exposed to higher viral load?
  • Vaccine trials pre-published their efficacy numbers after a few weeks phase 3 test subject data. Why were there no follow-up on those subjects involved in the various phase 3 trials, no ongoing testing status?
  • Why are new technologies like vaccine development largely funded by taxpayer spending, yet all profit goes to the shareholders of the pharmaceutical corporations? Why is public health emergency subordinated to this upward wealth transfer profit dynamic, rather than the other way around?
  • Why is there no broadcast messaging about immune system healthiness, like Vitamin D, Zinc, obesity, smoking, judicious diet, fitness, or proven cheap Covid-19 prophylactic nasal spray/eye drops? It makes no medical sense whatsoever not to frontline these easy personal interventions likely to save tens of thousands of lives (at the very lowest).


  • Trillions of dollars are at stake, for corporate and treasury revenue, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom/European Union. This will ensure American govt and its corporate clients will continue to exert their tight hold on the Coronavirus narrative.
  • Expect censorship to continue, subjects diversifying according to government priority as directed by vaccine makers and political expedience. Big tech regulation is a stick to beat platforms into submission, taxation a clear and present penalty for forcing corporations or billionaire CEOs to play ball.
  • Expect transgressions that risk profit or power to be punished with increasing force. Too much money and too many powerful people have staked their future on the current Coronavirus Political-Industrial complex. Expect genuine alternate prevention and treatment to be marginalized.  Will there be a paradigm shift? Look for testing standards that never coalesce and vaccine approval bias that continue to choose profit over lives e.g. American FDA not letting no-profit AstraZeneca ad-vector into the US market.
  • Expect shifting standards in the media shilling for vaccine and vaccine mandates as efficacy data becomes less falsifiable real-world but maximum profit will inform the narrative e.g. if vax doesn’t protect fully, look for propaganda about extra/regular shots, excuses like “the virus mutated” etc.