This m.o. works every time …
Never investigate that which you’d prefer to not ‘confirm.’
In the Sherlock Holmes story The Adventure of Silver Blaze, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes this about a critical clue in the murder mystery:
Detective: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Sherlock Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Detective: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
Sherlock Holmes: That was the curious incident.
****
In my last essay, I tried to illustrate that society has been ill-served by the paucity of thinkers who’ve actually read and researched numerous articles and studies which might cause one to arrive at different conclusions about all of the authorized Covid narratives.
As I wrote, I consider myself to be in the minority who’s never stopped reading interesting or “contrarian” articles on the Covid response. Based on this reading, I’ve formed several firmly-held conclusions, one of which is that officials never investigate that which they do not want to CONFIRM.
I don’t know when this thought - now one of Bill’s iron-clad maxims - first hit me, but at some point I realized that the “truth” might not be revealed by things one can observe, but by itemizing all the things that should have happened but never did … if a real “search for the truth” had been conducted by organizations and individuals in the truth-seeking professions.
The following is a partial list of topics that are clearly taboo or off-limits to “official” inquiry.
Early Spread …
It doesn’t bother me if many (or most) people dismiss my hypothesis that a novel coronavirus might have been infecting large numbers of people weeks or months before the “Wuhan Outbreak” in mid-December 2019. However, I think the evidence is compelling enough that a legitimate, good-faith investigation is certainly warranted. When so much evidence exists that seemingly supports this theory, it’s common sense to ask why hasn’t this taken place?
All-cause deaths …
The FACT far more world citizens are dying than in the years before the Covid “vaccines” is also an area that’s produced no normal curiosity about why this might be the case.
Estimates vary on how many “excess deaths” have happened since 2021, but just about every estimate produces numbers in the hundreds of thousands if not many millions.
Speaking for myself, in modern history, I can’t think of another example where officials displayed zero curiosity or interest in identifying causes that are (or even may be) killing vast numbers of our fellow citizens.
(If this question has been asked by authorities, the only accepted answers that might explain “excess deaths” would be Climate Change or “Long Covid’ - theories which insult the intelligence of those who can read and think for themselves.)
The largest “elephant in the room” in world history is a certain mRNA injection that more than 60 percent of the world’s population began to receive in late 2020.
One could break down all-cause deaths (and severe, life-altering injuries) by probably 50 different clinical manifestations including strokes, heart attacks, rapidly-developing cancers, auto-immune diseases, or just random “sudden deaths.”
The Embalmers’ Clots …
For me, the most glaring area of Taboo Inquiry is the absence of any serious and formal investigations which would look into the presence of never-before-seen white, fibrous clots found by thousands of embalmers and, thanks to a tiny number of hospital whistleblowers, in living patients.
In a nutshell, if a serious and legitimate inquiry was performed, the “embalmers’ clots” would be quickly confirmed as real, widespread and on-going. (And if this conclusion was “confirmed,” it’s impossible to imagine authorities clamoring to keep giving people these injections).
The age of a typical Covid victim was concealed or down-played …
I’d also note that a serious inquiry was never performed that revealed that virtually no healthy person under the age of, say, 50, faced any real mortality risk from the novel coronavirus.
Instead, the official narrative was that everyone faced mortality risk of dying from Covid-19, even if a random and young citizen’s probability of dying from this disease was lower than the odds the same person would be struck by lighting in a given year.
This fact could and should have been “confirmed” by March or April 2020 … but wasn’t.
Pick a large organization or group at random …
All one has to do to confirm that Covid kills virtually no healthy people under the age of, say, 60 is to simply consider any large sample group and tally the number of people in this cohort who actually died from this “deadly” new disease.
For example, by now, there must be millions of athletes who have contracted Covid. Despite this immense sample size, I still can’t (definitively) identify one current college or pro athlete who’s died from Covid.
A while back, I actually sent an email to the CDC, NIH and The Alabama Department of Public Health and asked a simple question: How many of your own employees have died from Covid as of today’s date?
‘Tells, tells, everywhere’ …
This question was, of course, not answered, which tells me officials do not want to “confirm’ that, very possibly, no employee in these large organizations had died from Covid … in four-plus years.
(I admit it’s possible a few people at these health agencies may, in fact, have died from Covid in the last four years. However, since tens of thousands of employees work at these agencies, the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of even a couple of deaths would be far lower than the flu IFR. (The flu is said to kill 1-in-1,000 people who are infected).
As to the question of why officials won’t answer (or confirm) the answers to these fair questions, the answer seems obvious. If these questions were answered, the fear that underpins all of the Covid responses might vanish. And fear is how authorities control mass populations.
As to why the excess-deaths question is off-limits to official inquiry, that answer should also be obvious.
Ask yourself: Would the government want to confirm that their own actions actually - or even “perhaps” - killed millions of citizens?
Another Question: Would you admit you were complicit in mass homicide?
A huge spike in deaths, but no increase in autopsies …
In medicine or pathology, the common means to identify causes of death is achieved by autopsies.
If nothing else, one might think that - after billions of people received experimental “vaccines” - and all-cause deaths immediately spiked to a degree unprecedented in modern history - that officials would have mandated far more autopsies (and made budgetary earmarks to fund many more autopsies).
More legit autopsies might also “confirm” that sinister or nefarious results followed the roll-out of a new type “vaccine.”
However, if no increase of autopsies occurred … it’s a given that no shocking autopsy findings would be forthcoming.
It turns out that the simplest solution to protect powerful entities is to simply not commission or perform common-sense investigations or real scientific inquiries.
Also, if the “watchdog” press believes every pronouncement issued by leaders of the Science/Medicine Complex, it’s virtually impossible for any authorized narrative to ever be debunked.
(Also, as many of us have learned from experience, when it comes to debunking bogus narratives, only mainstream media articles matter).
The simplest solutions are usually the best so officials simply don’t investigate anything that might expose crimes against humanity and/or prove professional malfeasance or gross incompetence.
I figured this out pretty early …
I began my “early spread” investigations in April 2020. Thinking back on those weeks, it might have taken me a few days to conclude that my area of inquiry was - for whatever reason- thermo-nuclear or off-limits to real and serious inquiry.
I certainly realized this when I discovered that dozens of media outlets would not publish any of my “early spread” articles and research.
Instead of deterring further research, this observation actually made me realize my investigative journalism might be hitting too close to a vulnerable or important target.
And it’s not just Covid investigations that are off-limits …
It also took me only a couple of days to realize that many other non-Covid scandals were probably taboo or off-limits to official inquiry as well.
For example, I realized - with 100-percent certainty - that officials were never going to “confirm” any of Jeffrey Epstein’s repeat sex-trafficking clients. (Even a cursory, real investigation would have confirmed this truth).
I also started wondering how many other elements of “accepted conventional wisdom” were completely false or at least dubious.
“Russia hacked the 2016 election;” Russia planted all the scandalous files on Hunter Biden’s laptop; the 2020 election results involved no voter fraud; “Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack,” “the rate of real inflation,” Climate Change is killing all the polar bears and flooding ocean-front communities (where, strangely, all the Climate Change alarmists have beach mansions) … Pick a topic and I quickly concluded that all the official narratives are probably false.
Alas, it took me far too long to understand the solution for not confirming any of the above - simply don’t investigate anything that might make the masses go to the hardware store and load up on pitchforks.
As my readers can no doubt tell, I’ve concluded practically every official narrative is a cover-story to protect the people and organizations who savor their absolute power and would like to achieve even more control.
Again: The world’s real rulers never investigate that which they’d prefer not to confirm. As far as I can tell, this stunningly simple strategy works every time.
****
(I’ve also observed that making politically incorrect observations might be damaging to the growth of certain Substack newsletters. In this environment, the support of generous donors is even more appreciated.)
Nothing like showing my vial of the white fibrous clots that I carry in my purse at all times to show anyone willing to look at them that they are indeed real.
Exactly, Bill.
It was the mainstream media's refusal to ask what were, to me, staringly obvious questions that made me distrust the "narrative." At the same time, I was increasingly alarmed to realize how most of the people around me didn't question anything; they simply accepted whatever the mainstream media fed them, no matter how peculiar, no matter how nonsensical. Those were lonely days.