When I tell people what I see is going on, some people agree, some are unsure, and others think something must be wrong with me. I must be brainwashed!

If you're one of these, I invite you to take a short trip down memory lane. Imagine how you might have answered these questions in 2019:

How long does it usually take to develop a safe vaccine? Why?

The commonly accepted answer in 2019 was 7-10 years. The commonly accepted reason was that this is how long it takes to see side effects. This was because of previous vaccines and pharmaceutical interventions which took this many years, or longer, to show detrimental effects.

Had there been attempts to develop a coronavirus vaccine before 2020?

There were, and they were abandoned because the coronavirus is an RNA virus which mutates quickly, so any vaccine quickly becomes obsolete. The vaccines made subsequent coronavirus infections worse or deadly. There was consensus that vaccines make sense against DNA viruses which make few transcription errors, are stable and do not easily mutate.

What did experts say on injected vaccines for respiratory infections?

The understanding was that an injected vaccine cannot be effective against a respiratory infection because antibodies in the blood do not interact with a virus that infects the tissues of the nose and throat. The antibodies in these tissues are separate and different. To stimulate production of these antibodies, a vaccine would have to be inhaled.

What was our idea of an effective vaccine?

Our idea of an effective vaccine was one that remains effective for 10 or 20 years and prevents infection. It was not a vaccine that develops negative efficacy after 5 months and requires twice-annual boosters.

What did we think of vaccines that reduce symptoms, but do not prevent infection?

We thought such a vaccine is "leaky", and we thought this is dangerous and deadly. In chickens, we have such a vaccine for Marek's disease. It prevents symptoms, but does not prevent infection. Its effect has been evolutionary pressure on the Marek's virus such that ALL chickens must now be vaccinated against Marek's, forever, otherwise they quickly die. Marek's virus adapted to produce enormous quantities of itself in the vaccinated chickens, without symptoms, but it kills the unvaccinated.

What did epidemiologists say about masks in 2019?

Before 2020, scientists knew masks are completely ineffective because (A) respiratory viruses spread as aerosols, which easily pass through the holes in the material of the masks, (B) masks don't fit, so even if the virions did not pass through material, they just go out the side, (C) aerosols linger indefinitely in the air, (D) the masks act as a mesh that accumulates bacteria and viral particles which are breathed in, going deeper into the respiratory tract, worsening the predicament.

What did epidemiologists say about lockdowns in 2019?

The pandemic plans of most countries held that lockdowns do not work against respiratory infections, that sick people should stay at home and the rest should go about their school, lives and work. It was understood that lockdowns would destroy the economy for no health benefit, and cause major and lasting damage exceeding that of any respiratory virus.

What was the expert opinion on asymptomatic transmission?

Studies showed, and experts believed, that asymptomatic transmission for respiratory infections is orders of magnitude rarer than symptomatic transmission and that the main places of transmission are hospitals and homes, where people are actively sick. Asymptomatic transmission was seen as a theoretical possibility, not a significant risk, because to transmit a virus, the body must make large quantities of it, and if the body is making large quantities of a virus, the person feels sick.

What did we think about coercive policies to vaccinate all adults?

We thought this is dangerous: the vaccine could end up harming many, or even wiping us out by causing widespread deaths and infertility. We thought liberal Western democracies are definitely places where such totalitarian measures were unthinkable, and could not reasonably occur.

What did we think about free speech? Was it dangerous, or essential?

We thought free speech was a cornerstone of a free society, a most sacred value which should be defended with our lives, if need be. Now, people have been persuaded that free speech is a threat to our health, and the only solution to the apparent pandemic is a totalitarian state.

I propose this is a reasonable, incomplete summary of things on which we might have agreed in 2019.

Most of us changed views since then, but we changed them in opposite directions.

I propose that some of us changed views based on a careful investigation of evidence, and others due to an unprecedented propaganda campaign relying on blatant psychological manipulations.

It's up to you to decide which is which. 😀