Nothing I write in any of my articles is meant to prejudice the views I expressed here about viruses, tests, pandemics etc:
Using establishment-based science against establishment-based science is a perfectly valid tactic.
So if, for example, I talk about the non-specific nature of “lateral flow tests” or “antibody testing”, please don’t come at me with “why are you propping up the virus model” or similar.
As you will glean from the article above, I don’t accept the validity of most of that science at all, but I don’t agree that it’s always wrong or counterproductive to point out internal inconsistencies in a model (as opposed to totally denunciating it) as part of a strategy of discrediting it.
You might not agree with that approach, but that’s your prerogative.
To my mind, it is a valid approach to getting some people to at least start to open up their minds to the unthinkable.
It’s not as if much else appears to be working particularly well.
As
and I wrote here:“we cannot agree that saying 'Viruses are fake!' or making similar statements is a superior or more legitimate tactic for persuading people about the depth and breadth of the lies they have been told than choosing to dismantle the individual precepts of the WHO et al’s pandemic claims.”