... what are you smoking? The research, the data, the theorising, the scientists, the university departments, the professors, the textbooks, the official "history", and everything that trickles down to you in a dumbed-down form you're taught from childhood is inextricably tied and bound to pharmaceutical corporations that have an annual worldwide revenue of 1.25 trillion dollars. But "science", right? Another dumbed-down mythology taught from childhood as a quasi-religion and carried through to adulthood by so many scientists themselves, most of them as naive Empicirists who have never even read Wittgenstein or heard of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, apart from those who have the intellectual perspicacity to have familiarised themselves with the unsolved problems of 20th century philosophy of science. Never mind that the notion of an "objective" and "impartial" empirical science is a nonsense from the get-go, when you tie it to a capitalistic industry that has become an example of literal Fascism in its marriage to government, that has through direct control and control of the culture total say-so over the paradigms and narrative of "infectious disease" and how to treat it, and where "demand" for their products is artificially created through government and paid-for doctors who believe the narrative, rather than whether or not their product actually and demonstrably works as in a field like electronics, the notion that this is a trustworthy "science" is ludicrous. HOw do I know that electronic equipment works? Turn it on. How do I know a vaccine works? Trust muh studies that the producer and seller paid for. Peer review? Journals are echo chambers of people who depend upon the perceived truth of the story for their livelihoods and social status, and dissenting voices even of accomplished men are silenced. Look what they did to figures like Peter Duesberg and Nobel laureate Kary Mullis for calling their bluff on the appalling science and big lie of "HIV-AIDS".
Here are a few questions to get you thinking, if you're capable of that:
When people in Wuhan were coming down with symptoms that were in no way novel or unique, either singularly or in aggregate, why and how was it determined to be a novel disease?
What is "COVID-19" really?
How was SARS-COV-2 identified, determined and proved to be the cause of these symptoms?
What is "SARS-COV-2" really?
How was its genome sequenced? Wholly from purified virions or in bits and pieces of short genetic sequences from contaminated samples which were run through PCR and theoretically pieced together with computer models based on sets of presuppositions and assumptions about what "SARs-COV-2" should look like?
Was SARS-COV-2 ever actually obtained in a pure viral isolate, not what the cocktail of chemical and cellular debris modern virologists euphemistically call "isolation", from people exhibiting these symptoms?
If not, how was any genetic material in a sample identified as belonging to it?
Was such an isolate, if existent, ever shown in a controlled study, following something at least approaching Koch's postulates, to produce symptoms of "COVID-19" and cell lysis in vivo in healthy organisms, particularly humans?
How, then, does anyone know that "SARS-COV-2" causes "COVID-19"?
Do "SARS-COV-2" and "COVID-19" really exist, or are they mental constructs abstracted from instrumental effects and a social narrative surrounding real symptomatic phenomena?