Anyone who uses the words "next pandemic" is acting as an establishment narrative reinforcer, whether they know it or not.

If they use these words within the context of better "preparing" for it, they almost certainly know exactly what they are doing, and it isn't in your best interests.

I’m heavily suppressed on X - it’s one of the reasons why I will sometimes repeat content I put on X here.

I tweeted the below earlier here. It answers the question I often get asked: why are you having a go at people like Peter McCullough, he’s on “our side”. The text refers to the tweet above, so go to that if it doesn’t make sense.

---

You are 100% right, but I make no apologies for it, as I don't agree on what is the "larger aspect".

You imply (but correct me if I am wrong) that you are sympathetic to PMC's view, which seems to be that

- we had a dangerous pandemic

- the egregious misstep in the "response" was in suppressing knowledge about and availability of "early treatments"

- these would have nullified the "pandemic" and saved "millions of lives".

I think that is dangerous nonsense.

My "campaign" (if you can call it that - I wish it was one) is to reveal the "pandemic" narrative as the scam that anyone who digs into the data can readily see it was.

That is really the only way to insulate humanity from the dangers of a re-run. So yes, for me, "next pandemic" are dangerous "keywords" and anyone who uses them (as does PMC) is acting - wittingly or not - as an establishment narrative reinforcer.

The long game being played here by governments, the WHO and others (including pharma) is for the population to be perpetually scared of viruses causing "another pandemic".

This will result in people calling for - or at least tolerating - a permanent biosecurity surveillance state, pandemic preparedness treaties and all the related paraphernalia which limit personal freedoms whilst enriching a narrow stratum of society.

Those that benefit from that - through control or financially - don't really care if people conclude that the "viral threat" is "man-made" or "zoonotic", provided people believe there is a threat.

Therefore, those who do not point out that what happened in certain "pandemic hotspots" (esp N Italy and NYC) is so implausible, utterly different from anywhere else, and incompatible with viral spread can say whatever else they like.

The thing being protected by controlling the parameters of debate - and allowing or even encouraging the "fight" by "truth-tellers" to reveal all about the "lab origin of covid" - is the notion of "sudden spread of a novel deadly virus".

As Lenin said:

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves"

It's not as if threats have not been manufactured or exaggerated before to satisfy the objectives of governments.

HL Mencken's words seem apposite:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”