How could anyone believe Covid-19 was spreading around the world in late 2019? Since the very EXISTENCE of Covid-19 was never properly vetted, it is a very BAD idea to convince people this is true.
It must be noted that the suppression of free speech began when virologists claimed they had discovered a novel coronavirus and did not permit that theory to be vetted in anyway. Even the most open-minded judges have not grasped the concept that a monopoly has been granted to the CDC and the WHO as to their theory that SARS-Cov-2 virus has been proven to exist. These theories have never been vetted by outside skeptics because the mainstream theory has been declared to be (in effect) sacrosanct--you cannot question it or else you will be accused of spreading medical misinformation.
The appeal to a majority "scientific" consensus opinion inherently violates the Constitution's right to free speech. Nonetheless if the original study to determine the existence of the virus was not conducted under the proper procedures of scientific inquiry, how can we accept the mainstream view?
Dr. Sam Bailey along with other signatories have advocated conducting a real clinical study which can be done to prove or deny the claims of the mainstream consensus view--not one based on an extremely small sample of patients as was done in China or theoretical computer simulation that offers specious "proof" that the virus exists.
The study would have to be a massive study with a control group (which of course was not done when the mainstream virologists came to their conclusions which brought economic ruin to millions not to mention all the deaths from the killer jabs).
How could anyone believe Covid-19 was spreading around the world in late 2019? Since the very EXISTENCE of Covid-19 was never properly vetted, it is a very BAD idea to convince people this is true.
It must be noted that the suppression of free speech began when virologists claimed they had discovered a novel coronavirus and did not permit that theory to be vetted in anyway. Even the most open-minded judges have not grasped the concept that a monopoly has been granted to the CDC and the WHO as to their theory that SARS-Cov-2 virus has been proven to exist. These theories have never been vetted by outside skeptics because the mainstream theory has been declared to be (in effect) sacrosanct--you cannot question it or else you will be accused of spreading medical misinformation.
The appeal to a majority "scientific" consensus opinion inherently violates the Constitution's right to free speech. Nonetheless if the original study to determine the existence of the virus was not conducted under the proper procedures of scientific inquiry, how can we accept the mainstream view?
Dr. Sam Bailey along with other signatories have advocated conducting a real clinical study which can be done to prove or deny the claims of the mainstream consensus view--not one based on an extremely small sample of patients as was done in China or theoretical computer simulation that offers specious "proof" that the virus exists.
The study would have to be a massive study with a control group (which of course was not done when the mainstream virologists came to their conclusions which brought economic ruin to millions not to mention all the deaths from the killer jabs).
Check out the proposed study entitled "Settling the Virus Debate," which can be found here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
Free Download. THE ALTERNATIVE COVID-19 NARRATIVE HANDBOOK. A Collection of useful links. Get it here: https://turfseer.substack.com/p/the-alternative-covid-narrative-handbook