David Icke, Love Not Fear is The Answer |460|

Oh please, just because Alex interviewed David Icke, doesn't mean he agrees with everything said by him. If you actually paid attention to what was going on, you'd find that Alex and many of us do understand that there is a virus, and that we don't necessarily follow the "NO VIRUS COS ITS NOT BEEN ISOLATED" camp.
As far as I've been able to determine, the virus alleged to be causing Covid-19 (Sars-CoV-2) has not been isolated, and that would have to be done if one wanted to prove it was the cause of the disease. What has been done is to identify certain nucleotide sequences and associate them with Sars-CoV-2. However, at least some of the sequences could have some other origin, e.g. in host tissue or host tissue secretions such as nasal mucus.

Does a virus cause Covid-19? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think anyone really knows. There may be some other kind of infective agent than a virus, or if it is a virus, it may not be Sars-2-Cov. I'm not denying, by the way, that there's a disease labelled Covid-19 and that it appears to be transmissible from person to person in some way.

Millions of people are being injected with vaccines based on "identified sequences". One hopes that the vaccine won't itself be pathogenic for some people; it'd be hard to say so for sure because the vaccine might not be 100% effective -- indeed, there are reports of people dying after vaccinations, but was that as a result of the vaccinations, or did those affected already have Covid-19 and the vaccine simply not work for them?

As Boris Johnson indicated, the major factor in reduction of Covid-19 cases may have more to do with lockdowns than vaccinations. Everything depends, of course, on whether or not the cause of Covid-19 is in fact a transmissible vector. According to germ theory, all transmissible diseases must be caused by a vector such as bacteria or viruses -- otherwise, wouldn't we be back to some version of the "noxious vapour" narrative?

I'm agnostic. I don't know what the heck has been going on, or what role if any human psychology has to play in transmissibility. Everyone these days knows about placebos and nocebos, and there's also Rupert Sheldrake's ideas on morphic resonance to consider. One might ask how it is that people can get very similar symptoms, without even consciously knowing what those symptoms are in advance, unless there is an active, transmissible infective agent? But if Sheldrake is right, we might also ask why it is that all rats can benefit from improved maze-solving capabilities in some, or all sparrows in many different countries can learn to puncture milk-bottle tops, or all examples of a given compound come to be able to crystallise at the same time even on opposite sides of the earth? My take is that we need to keep an open mind and be skeptics in the true sense of the word -- which involves entertaining many possibilities and not deciding firmly on just one.