That is the wrong question. The right question to ask is: what is COVID-19?
The short answer: the individual symptoms indeed exist, but the ‘disease’ COVID-19, just like the virus model SARS-CoV-2, only exists in theory.
In later videos, we will discuss the topic of COVID-19 and the causes of the individual symptoms in detail.
At the beginning of the so-called Corona crisis, COVID-19 was defined as atypical pneumonia. Even this definition was more than problematic because there are a whole range of possible causes for atypical pneumonia that have nothing whatsoever to do with any pathogens. From various physical processes including those resulting from complex psychosomatics, to physical-chemical causes. It is one thing for orthodox medicine to ignore psychosomatic causes for illness and attempt to explain illnesses exclusively in terms of supposed pathogens, but the physical-chemical causes, which include various toxic drugs, have been well known to orthodox medicine for a long time. Nevertheless, these have been consistently ignored from the start of this crisis.
When the PCR tests appeared, the catalogue of symptoms of COVID-19 was rapidly expanded. The clinical picture was augmented with a ‘non-specific spectrum of symptoms’ as the RKI writes in their Epidemiological Fact Sheet. This means that COVID-19 can now be anything or nothing at all, according to individual medical whims.
This was enabled by attributing to COVID-19 all the possible symptoms that people with a positive PCR test exhibited – from then onwards, these random symptoms were included as official COVID-19 symptoms. The only prerequisite for this was that the symptom could somehow be attributed to the corona virus theory, even if the explanation was tenuous and without evidence.
Thus, although broken bones were not associated with COVID-19 despite a positive PCR test, other inflammatory symptoms such as conjunctivitis, liver dysfunction, skin rash, blood poisoning, kidney failure and much more, were.
Please note that we are in no way making light of people who are in intensive care with severe pneumonia or other ailments, or who may even be dying. Nowadays, people are very quick to accuse you of this if you criticise the official Corona narrative. It is the supposedly ‘medical-scientific’ definition of COVID-19 that we are criticising here.
By July 2020 the clinical picture as defined by health authorities and scientific institutes all over the world COVID-19 had broadened to include almost 30 official symptoms. In addition, there were countless conjectures and ‘possible long-term consequences’ (now also called ‘long-COVID’), which were said to need further research – this state of affairs has not changed today. There was also the so-called ‘asymptomatic course’, since people without any symptoms tested positive in droves and, according to theories, one might carry the virus and be contagious without becoming ill oneself. At some point, an attempt was made to redefine COVID-19 from a respiratory disease to a vascular disease.
Since then, a bewildering array of symptoms, theories, redefinitions and new hypotheses have been added to COVID-19.
In the history of orthodox medicine, there have been many other ambiguous definitions of diseases including ‘plague’, ‘cold’, ‘influenza’ and ‘AIDS’. Sometimes obvious symptoms of poisoning were redefined as contagious disease; other times, the body’s own processes were declared to be wrong or malfunctioning, something that had to be defeated or corrected. In other instances, diverse symptoms were lumped together and an altogether new disease was declared to exist. Finally, certain physical conditions were claimed to make people susceptible to disease, and henceforth, any symptoms that presented were attributed to that condition. Above all, the ‘pathogen’, the malignant, invisible enemy was claimed to be the cause.
What is COVID-19 supposed to be now?
COVID-19 belongs to the category of ‘throwing together and relabeling’. Over time, a compilation of all the symptoms collected from people who tested ‘positive’ with the PCR test has developed. Although the same symptoms are also found in many other disease definitions, it is now asserted that they belong together and are triggered by a single common cause, as soon as they are accompanied by a ‘COVID’ positive PCR test.
COVID-19 is therefore just another wild conglomeration of widely diverse symptoms and complaints which occur in the most diverse tissues and in fact have the most diverse causes. Not a single symptom, for which SARS-CoV-2 and any of its alleged variants are held responsible, is in any way new or unusual.
It becomes downright entertaining when you take a closer look at how the health authorities and so-called corona experts tried to distinguish COVID-19 from other, similar disease definitions on the basis of its symptoms. Suddenly, symptoms that every general practitioner would have associated with banal phenomena such as ‘a common cold’ were presented as exclusive, specific COVID-19 symptoms. The same thing was done again recently in an attempt to distinguish the alleged ‘omicron wave’ not only from ‘flu’ and the simple ‘common cold’ but also from the previous ‘delta wave’. Depending on which source one reads, one finds the claim that loss of appetite is an almost exclusive symptom of omicron, which supposedly never occurs with flu or a cold; furthermore, although flu, common colds and COVID are often accompanied by a runny nose, sneezing only occurs with a common cold and occasionally with new COVID variants, but never with flu. In the case of some of the other symptoms, it is simply claimed that they occur more often or less often with this or that illness.
This disease definition and the desperate attempt to distinguish it from other disease definitions on the basis of its postulated symptoms can only be described as absurd.
Imagine that in 2019 you had gone to your GP with symptoms of ‘flu’. The doctor listened to your description of symptoms, examined you and then told you that you were wrong to call it flu because in addition to a sore throat and a cold, you also had to sneeze and had a loss of appetite, neither of which occurs with influenza. From this, the doctor decided you had a completely new disease and wanted to immediately inform the public health department.
What would you have thought of this doctor’s diagnosis?
To present common symptoms such as loss of appetite or fatigue – regular occurrences in countless physical complaints – as specific symptoms of only certain diseases, is nonsensical. A symptom such as sneezing that is firmly linked to a specific organ cannot be used to make a distinction. To claim that a cold that runs with or without a sneeze is a sign of a specific disease only proves that all the experts who wander from talk show to talk show in the Corona era to present their opinion (which changes every day anyway) do not investigate and understand the real connections of biological processes in the body at all, but argue exclusively within the framework of a fictitious idea.
COVID-19 cannot be distinguished from other medical disease definitions on the basis of its symptoms because countless other disease definitions are now included in COVID-19. All of these symptoms are well-known but have been relabelled with a new, theoretical classification. Without PCR testing, any of these symptoms would be simply assigned to the normal ‘flu’, the ‘common cold’ and other diseases. Why was there virtually no alleged ‘flu’ in Germany in 2020 and 2021? Because this was simply not diagnosed. The symptoms would all have been there, but since diagnosis is now only done with PCR tests, everything was Corona.
This arbitrary diagnosis on the basis of meaningless laboratory tests is, incidentally, one of the ways in which those responsible worldwide can relinquish responsibility for the whole Corona affair: The scientists ‘discover’ an alleged new variant and claim that the virus has mutated in such a ways as to become harmless. Once declared harmless, positive tests would no longer have any meaning and testing would be stopped. From then on, COVID diagnoses would fizzle out and the symptoms attributed to it would once again be assigned to colds and seasonal flu. In a similar manner, the alleged swine flu of 2009 disappeared overnight.
And what about Long-COVID?
Chronic ‘Long-COVID’, just like the acute version, is nothing more than a claim justified by PCR tests, some of which date back a long time. Thus, the definition of the disease becomes even broader in the case of Long-COVID. Basically, everything can be claimed as a long-term consequence of COVID-19, including psychological complaints.
This is the RKI’s corona profile:
“So far, no uniform clinical picture can be defined and the underlying mechanisms are not yet clear. Very different symptoms are reported, which can persist over weeks and months, reappear in phases or also develop anew.”
We are just waiting for cancer to be included as a long-term consequence in the COVID-19 symptom catalogue (perhaps this has already happened in the meantime?). In any case, there are no longer any limits to COVID-19’s definition of disease.
And one can be absolutely sure that all the symptoms and problems that will continue to be a result of the lockdown, social distancing and the irresponsible Corona panic-mongering in the media will continue to find their way into the Long COVID symptom catalogue.
Assembly-line diagnoses using laboratory tests have nothing to do with medicine, with science and with genuine concern for the well-being of a population. They are a business model. If you want to know what is going on physically in a person, you have to examine them very carefully and, most importantly, individually. Which symptoms appear in which organ and with what intensity? What is the person’s mental state, what is his social environment, what is his medical history, etc.? Only then can one say what a person is actually suffering from and how they can be helped.
But hang on! What about the loss of the sense of smell and taste?
In the case of the notorious loss of smell and taste, the situation is very similar to that of atypical pneumonia. For both of these there are a whole range of possible causes but instead of investigating them more closely, it is simply claimed without any factual basis, that the dangerous virus must be responsible.
Practically every GP everywhere in the world will see patients every year who, in addition to the usual ‘common cold’ symptoms, will also report a loss of smell and taste. The phenomenon is well known; just as with loss of appetite, tiredness and sneezing, it would be nonsensical to claim that this is a specific symptom that points to a very specific disease.
We recommend the article “The loss of smell and taste” by Ursula Stoll in the 03/2021 issue of Wissenschafftplus. In this, the author describes in detail the way which physical processes and connections lead to the phenomenon that is considered THE significant symptom of COVID-19.
Swelling of the olfactory mucosa, as is always the case with ‘colds’, is probably the most common cause of temporary loss of the sense of smell and taste. Head injuries or nasal polyps can also lead to the same condition. Additionally, it has long been known that (as with atypical pneumonia) a whole range of medications can also be responsible, as can a testing stick that is inserted into the nose, injuring the olfactory bulb.
The observation, or rather the perception, that the loss of the sense of smell and taste has become much more frequent since Corona than before can easily be explained by the fact that the focus of the population is drawn to this phenomenon. As a result, people not only notice it more quickly, they also perceive it more intensely, especially if fear is involved.
The situation in which we all find ourselves due to the ‘Corona Crisis’ is so extremely unnatural and stressful that countless people suffer from symptoms of great intensity that they have never experienced before. This can be easily explained by complex psychosomatics. After all, few of us has ever experienced such a prolonged, stressful and overwhelming time.
None of what goes on in the ‘Corona Crisis’ in terms of disease and physical discomfort demands a pathogen and contagion to explain it.
And what is ‘Flurona’?
It’s another absurd claim. There’s nothing more to say about it.
Anyone who understands how the COVID-19 claim came about will understand how ideas such as ‘Flurona’, ‘Deltakron’ and ‘Twindemic’ arose.
Conclusion
The one thing that will still be a very difficult, and for some people stressful chapter in coming to terms with the whole ‘Corona crisis,’ is the question: how many people ultimately needlessly died in the last two years?
How many people would still be alive if only they had been thoroughly examined instead of just being given a PCR test? How many people could have easily recovered from familiar symptoms if medical practitioners had not blindly followed the guidelines of a WHO or a health authority? How much damage and distress could have been averted if people had been taken care of individually instead of being put into a generalised ‘disease pigeonhole’?
In summary, all the symptoms attributed to COVID-19 do exist but there is no evidence that they have a common cause. The individual symptoms are all well known and in the majority of cases can be treated relatively easily. It is only the PCR test that defines the disease and suggests a common, infectious cause.
COVID-19 is possibly the most absurd disease definition in the history of medicine.
Your Immanuel Project team