AC,

I get that you were piecing things together early on. But the problem with the "too many red flags" approach is that it turns a pile of separate events into a single storyline.

Fort Detrick. Vaping illness. Event 201. WHO timing. Lab safety questions. That's not evidence of coordination, it's pattern-stacking.

Event 201 was a pandemic exercise. Governments run those all the time. Running a bushfire drill doesn't mean you lit the match.

The vaping cases were traced to vitamin E acetate in black-market THC cartridges. That was established pretty clearly.

And the genome was published in January 2020. That's how vaccine design started so quickly. mRNA tech wasn't invented overnight either. It had been in development for years.

Distrust is fine. But suspicion isn't proof.

Which of those things do you think actually demonstrates coordination, rather than coincidence?

You still haven't answered the all-important question, mhaze:

Which part of the paper provides the causal framework strong enough to justify that level of confidence?

Hi John,
Sorry for the slow response, I only just saw this.
Did you watch the video I shared, by chance?
It has a number of other points I haven't mentioned, and Garland does a way better job than me selling his opinions, and I - well at the very least acknowledge his arguments and line of thinking.

I acknowledge your 'holding feet to the fire' approach to facts.
I know there's a difference between 'proven fact' and 'working theory'.

As I can say right now is the whole thing never smelled right to me.
It just smelled like bs.

And I know that doesn't give your fact-oriented analytical mind much to go with...

Maybe for you things organise better into black and white.
Maybe I pay more attention than others of the grey in between.
I don't know.

Apologies for the delayed response, AC.

I finally got around to watching the entire video, and I can see why it feels compelling. It's structured around a timeline. "This happened, then this, then this" is a format that always feels persuasive.

But here's the issue, proximity in time isn't causation:

- Fort Detrick failing an inspection doesn't equal a leak.
- A summer respiratory outbreak in a retirement home isn't unusual.
- The vaping lung injuries were traced to vitamin E acetate in illicit THC cartridges. That investigation didn't just vanish. It concluded.

The September 2019 executive order wasn't some secret Covid starter pistol. It was about influenza vaccine manufacturing. Influenza pandemics happen. 1918. 1957. 1968. 2009. Governments plan for the next one because history says there will be a next one. The word "pandemic" appearing in a flu preparedness document isn't weird. It would be weird if it didn't.

As for Event 201, SARS happened in 2003, MERS in 2012 - both were coronaviruses. So it would actually be strange if you ran a pandemic simulation in 2019 and you don't model it on a coronavirus. There was no prophecy, it was simply a case of picking a plausible category of pathogen.

The video's strength isn't evidence. It's sequencing. It walks you through events in a way that creates narrative gravity.

But "this happened near this" isn't proof that one caused the other.

And I don't think this is about black and white vs grey. I think it's about the difference between:

- things that feel suspicious
and
- things that meet evidentiary thresholds.

You're right, instinct doesn't give me much to go on. But instinct alone can't carry the claim either.

so called vxx rollout killed and maimed thousands in this country. tga, aphra and public health showed themselves to be criminals. So sad they cancelled doctors who stood for truth. Personally, I witnessed death, strokes and numerous other auto immune diseases as a direct result of so called vxx. Interesting that less than 10% of doctors are taking boosters. Even Karl Stefanovic and other pharma harlots have apologised. I wonder how ex ama's lesbian partner is getting on? So glad I refused the poison. How embarrassing for the harlots still trying to justify this evil.

That's a lot of accusation there, runner, but not much evidence.

"Personally I witnessed…" doesn't get you where you want to go. In a country that gave out tens of millions of doses, people were always going to have strokes, heart attacks, cancers and autoimmune diagnoses afterwards. That's just what happens in large populations every day. The real question is whether those events happened more often than you'd normally expect after vaccination.

That's why people look at linked vaccination, hospital and mortality data, not just stories and impressions. And when those population-level analyses are done, the same pattern keeps turning up: during COVID waves, mortality was higher among the unvaccinated, especially in older groups.

None of that means vaccines were risk-free. They weren't. No medical intervention is. But "I saw bad things happen" is a long way from "thousands were killed."

If that's really the claim, then where's the clear signal in the Australian mortality data after the rollout?