Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bill Rice, Jr.'s avatar

I hope everyone understands the massive significance of one point highlighted in my article - namely, that if U.S. officials HAD tested that first tranche of Red Cross blood by latter February 2020, the lockdowns should NOT have happened. The results of that study showed beyond a reasonable doubt that this virus had been spreading in America by at least November 2019. Lockdowns marketed to “slow” or “stop” the “spread” of this virus could not have achieved this objective.

All the misery and economic carnage caused by the lockdowns would NOT have occurred.

Here we also need to cast blame on our watchdog mainstream press as well. First, journalists should have been calling for this common-sense (and expedited) study from the beginning .... and didn’t. After the study’s findings were made public, they should have asked all the questions I posed in my article (they of course would NOT have done this). For example, journalists should have been asking why officials didn’t test archived blood from other states and other points in time.

If this had happened, the evidence of early spread would have been even more undeniable.

Simple common sense tells us WHY this blood wasn’t tested in time to avert the lockdowns. The leaders making our decisions didn’t want this to happen because they wanted to impose those lockdowns. They no doubt KNEW what the findings of that serologic survey would be. So they intentionally delayed the testing. This, in my opinion, constitutes a “crime against humanity.” If nothing else, it’s an egregious example of professional malfeasance and incompetence.

Furthermore, one strongly suspects that the key objective in delaying this antibody testing was to ensure the “warp speed” effort to produce and then mandate a vaccine wasn’t also nixed.

The wide-spread knowledge that many millions of Americans had already been infected (and nobody even noticed) would have dramatically reduced the level of fear associated with this disease. The “key to the operation” has always been getting everyone vaccinated, which requires mass fear in the public.

Publishing or announcing these antibody results in late February or early March 2020 would have perhaps thwarted all of their true agendas.

And so a conscious decision was made to hold off on that testing - to conceal the truth from the American public ... And misery and carnage ensued because this intentional decision was made. The world was turned upside down for no good reason.

Expressed differently, evidence that would or should have prevented the lockdowns was intentionally concealed from the public. I think this DOES probably constitute a "crime against humanity." The lockdowns were authorized under false pretenses. The predicate for the lockdowns - that this virus had barely started to spread in America - could have easily been proven to have been a lie ... If they were seeking such evidence, which they weren't. They were working as hard as they could to conceal vital evidence. Isn't that a crime?

Expand full comment
Bill Rice, Jr.'s avatar

A fair rejoinder to my hypothesis would be summarized by this question: If this virus was spreading widely around the world by the fall of 2019 where are all the deaths one would have expected to see?

My answer to this critique is presented in another long article I wrote several weeks ago. Basically, I think most of the deaths were caused by the RESPONSE to the virus ... not by the virus proper (so-called "iatrogenic" deaths). Also, as Stanford's John Ioannadis has argued, the IFR for the virus for people under 60 is probably lower than for influenza. That is, many millions of people could acquire this virus (with some being symptomatic and many asymptomatic) and NOT die from it.

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/if-early-spread-happened-why-no-early

Expand full comment
68 more comments...

No posts