A lot to unpick here. There will no doubt be those who will claim that there was no SARS-CoV-2 virus at all and that all tests and all symptoms attributed to the presence of the 'novel' Covid virus were common colds, 'flu and viral and bacterial pneumonia. Then there will be those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 did not suddenly appear in Dec 2019 and the 'flu virus did not mysteriously disappear six months or so later - because viruses don't exist!

"Despite the similarity of the symptoms of flu with those of SARS-CoV-2 it was, at least initially, the infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 that differentiated it from the flu - its novelty was dependant on its perceived elevated lethality. However, over time the infection fatality rates for SARS-CoV-2 have converged on that for the flu and now the deadliness of one is indistinguishable from the other. Why then do we, three years later, do we consider SARS-CoV-2 to be more novel than flu or any other respiratory viral infection? Given that the symptoms of both overlap to an extent which makes each completely indistinguishable from the other based on clinical presentation, legitimate questions have been raised as to the circumstances that led SARS-CoV-2 to be identified as a novel virus in the first place."

Its novelty was not just defined by the scary infection fatality rate put out by the WHO and others at the beginning of the so called 'pandemic'. It was also defined by some relatively mild, but very unusual symptoms described by people who caught 'something' - even as far back as autumn 2019. There are plenty of people who've had colds and 'flu who will attest to feeling that there was something quite unique about this 'new' infection. Its novelty was additionally defined by a seemingly very unusual, if not unique, pathology when it manifested as severe or fatal disease. Its novelty was also defined by the highly skewed vulnerability curve, where the very old and those with co-morbidities were at disproportionate risk, whilst (unlike with 'flu) much younger people were at statistically zero risk.

So personally, I think it is entirely possible, likely even, that 'flu positive tests and symptomatic 'flu cases were attributed to SARS-CoV-2, but I think the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still present and causing disease.

Expand full comment
Apr 1Liked by Jonathan Engler, Martin Neil

The influenza virus have not "disappeared", it never manifested on such scale to begin with. The influenza numbers were inflated artificially for decades via RT-PCR testing, to coerce the cattle into seasonal "flu shots". COVID-19 was perceived to be a similar source of revenue by mainstream vaccine manufacturers, who planned to roll out traditional vaccines on a usual schedule. However, the mRNA developers successfully interdicted via "Operation Warpspeed", and the situation became somewhat chaotic, as we can now see

Expand full comment

Many frontline health workers have observed the "phenomenon" of flu "disappearing" and covid-19 taking over. Patients with positive or suspected influenza became covid-19 positive as if overnight or over the weekend, after the PCR testing machines (my was Biofire) were upgraded with a new chip to detect covid-19. Most hospitals and ER rooms in Canada got their upgrades in mid March to April 2020. Not surprisingly after April 2020, all influenza "vanished" in Canada despite testing. 30K tests in 2021 zero flu found.

Another scientific miracle.


Let's not forget, there was not pandemic in Canada. If anything, it was in 2016-2017 flu season.


When this world-wide scam is exposed, or IF it is allowed to be exposed, heads will be rolling down the streets...

Expand full comment

I've tried (unsuccessfully) to make a big deal out of the FACT that the CDC did NOT test any tranches of "archived" Red Cross blood before they ordered the lockdowns. The first tranche of this blood that was belatedly tested was collected Dec. 13-16, 2019. I argue this blood could have easily been tested for antibodies by the first week in March. If it had been, the public would have learned that 2.03 percent of blood donors from CA, WA and OR already had detectable levels of antibodies when they donated this blood. Since it takes one to three weeks for detectable levels of antibodies to form, this means most of those donors had been infected by November 2019 (if not earlier).

Also, the CDC only tested one tranche of archived blood when common sense says they should have tested numerous tranches from many different points in time from all sections of the country. The results of this ONE study were not published until November 30, 2020 - 11 1/2 months after the first batch of blood had been collected.

My hypothesis is that certain officials KNEW this virus was circulating and didn't want the public to know this. They were concealing evidence of early spread.

The start date of virus spread has always been way off. If this was known, every element of the Covid narrative might have been different. Most of the terrible things that happened very likely wouldn't have happened. Certainly, it would be impossible to "slow" or "stop" the spread of a super-contagious virus if the virus had already infected millions of people by November 2019 if not earlier. The IFR or CFR estimates would be completely different. We would have known much earlier that the virus was less lethal than the flu for the vast majority of people.

Of course, any real investigations into "early spread" would get us closer to learning who was responsible for the creation and spread of this virus. So I get why such investigations didn't happen ... and why so much effort seems to have been made to conceal evidence of early spread.

Expand full comment
Apr 1Liked by Jonathan Engler

Would also like to point out that Australia 2020 is an interesting case. They had no Flu. But they also had no Covid. I have heard two explanations: 1. Viral Interference by SC2 on Flu. This seems implausible because SC2 was not really all that present. So the logical questions might be: can a virus interfere with another virus without infecting? how much infecting needs to happen for a virus to cause VI on another virus? 2. Since Flu was absent almost everywhere in the world from March 2020 onward (hmmmm, just about the time the PCR tests went online), it (Flu) could not get to a remote island like Australia. This hypothesis is part "NPIs Work!" and part "Australia Is An Island" voodoo that I am having a hard time buying.

Expand full comment

How many people likely died due to lack of treatment for Influenza and secondary pneumonia because of faulty PCR tests and/or hospital protocols that allowed for only oxygen and ventilators for covid positives, worse, 'suspected' cases? Add in the midazolam + morphine protocols and it is certain these decisions, this ignorance, claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe more.

Expand full comment

says it all--brilliantly --In the early part of the pandemic doctors were incentivised to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, where the symptoms are indistinguishable from flu, for symptoms which would have hitherto been attributed to Influenza-like-illnesses (ILIs). That incentive was achieved by a combination of authoritative diktat by the WHO, who mandated that a respiratory death could be certificated as covid-19 deaths on the flimsiest of grounds, and the all-pervasive fear caused by the ceaseless propaganda about a novel and deadly virus. And this despite the fact that the UKHSA (Health Security Agency) had ruled that SARS-CoV-2 was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.

Expand full comment

I feel that you are close to the penny dropping. What was once called the flu (very limited testing and diagnosed from general symptoms of detox eg mucus, cough, headache, fever and inflammation and a seasonal round of deaths in care homes) was then called 'covid' (lots of testing with a PCR amplification technique for genetic sequences never shown to come from a 'virus'- an infectious entity plus lots of deaths in Spring 2020 caused by midazolam administration (not a good death) and deliberate dehydration to death of the elderly in care homes separated from the protection of their loved ones.)

There is no evidence of a novel virus. There is no evidence for any virus. There is no evidence that illness is transmitted by contagions.

There is lots of evidence that disease is caused by medications, loneliness, despair, lack of fresh air and exercise, malnutrition, insanitary conditions, stress, dehydration and vaccines.


I wish you well



Expand full comment
Apr 1Liked by Jonathan Engler

Apparently in Kenya, the flu never went away and remained as prevalent as ever, even with all their masks and lockdowns.


Expand full comment

"Was covid-19 disease actually entirely new, or is it simply caused by misattributing flu, or the myriad of other causes of respiratory illnesses, as SARS-CoV-2? Or is there some other unknown mechanism that generates one or the other or indeed both?"

The mechanism that causes "other" respiratory illnesses is well known: it's called fear. It works so well that healthy people can't breathe and often collapse if they believe they have an illness because they think, or were told (after a positive PCR test), they were exposed to a pathogen even if it is an imaginary one...

CDC's own study proves how well this agent called fear works. Look at this:

"Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021"

"...The strongest risk factors for death were obesity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27–1.33), anxiety and fear-related disorders..."

The second strongest risk factor for death with a positive covid-19 test, after obesity, were anxiety and fear-related disorders??? And not a viral load, not pneumonia, not blood clotting, not cytokine storm, no nothing....as officially portrayed by so-called experts.

Elephant in the room?


Expand full comment

There are no doubt systemic flaws with the PCR test.

"But focusing on this alone side-steps questions of cross-reactivity, non-specificity, cross contamination or some outcome synergistic with high amplification."

The Daily Beagle article's main focus was primarily the Cycle thresholds as you correctly observe, as broadening scope invariably expands article length (especially to do any justice of depth to a topic), and my informal observations in reader preferences is they prefer very compact, on-point, narrow scope articles with a slow ramp. I struggled to keep the Cycle threshold article contained to scope.

For example, I skipped the history of the issues with 'Low Copy Numbers' in DNA PCR test kits in legal cases because the extend would have added several pages. I also did not post the entire FOIA pages provided by NHS Trusts to avoid overwhelming the reader with usual FOIA bloat.

The LFT rebuttal felt a bit tacky, but I felt like highlighting a PCR flaw gave the false impression that LFTs were somehow more accurate or less prone to abuse compared to PCR, and I felt it was needed to suggest testing in general isn't secure.

I fully recognise PCR tests have many extensive flaws, however I feel it is better to do an in-depth look at flaws individually, as it allows for introducing laypeople to alien topics whilst also giving decent coverage of scope. It also gives nice, clean article breaks, and neatly compartmentalises information, so it is much easier to reference. I found readers were not fans of rapid-fire, multi-faceted coverage approaches of generalist topics (some of the worst performing articles).

Expand full comment

I’d value the authors comments on these two articles I wrote. Both develop my hypothesis that the novel coronavirus was circulating widely across the globe (and America) months before the lockdowns (or when officials said the virus had arrived in America).

These articles largely focus on ANTIBODY evidence of prior infection (not PCR evidence).

This article presents mechanisms I believe were used by officials to conceal evidence of early spread:


This article summarizes some of the known evidence of Americans who have antibody (and symptom, clinical) evidence of having cases in November and December 2019.


The disappearance of influenza has always made no sense to me. This is almost-certainly explained by the authors' hypothesis that officials simply changed the flu tests.

Expand full comment

I thought it had disappeared due to the effectiveness of masks and distancing.

Expand full comment

Clinically there was definitely something new and different which the doctors treating patients noticed, with unusual chest x-ray appearances and CT scans and with patients not responding to ventilation in the expected way. The new virus definitely has its own clotting issues too. It’s possible that this could have been circulating last quarter of 2019 without enough cases in one place to notice a clinical pattern and then when a massive increase in cases occurred it became clinically obvious. I remember in late 2020 ( when everyone was trying to guess how much covid would return for the winter) seeing a graph of the 4 types of coronavirus previously known from WestMountain Healthcare ( or some similar name for a conglomeration of healthcare providers in west USA ) and it showed spectacularly steep and sudden rises in one which would fall off to be replaced by the next etc. That looked like a good example of viral interference to me and they appeared to arrive out of the blue from nowhere.

I think it’s very likely that some cases of flu were misdiagnosed but I also believe there was a new entity ( maybe it was an infectious clone as per JJ Couey) which has a different clinical pattern.

There is also a phenomenon of multiple contacts getting ill ( at same time or sequentially) and all with similar symptoms but not all of them test positive on the rapid antigen tests.

From personal experience ( I’m a retired GP) I had something weird and frightening Nov/Dec’19 which I knew wasn’t the flu but hadn’t a clue what it was. I also had pathognomonic omicron in Dec’21 which was different to other seasonal colds which I’ve ( unusually for me) suffered from in the last 2 years.

Expand full comment

It's almost as if there is a kakistocracy in place that requires "malicious stupidity" as a qualification.

Expand full comment