Dawn Lester
Dec 12, 2025
It’s blatantly obvious that there’s a concerted effort by the media to insert an increased fear of ‘germs’ into the public psyche. This effort began a couple of months ago with a focus on claims about an early start to the ‘flu season’, as I wrote in my November article Winter Scare Stories - see link below.
However, the past few weeks have seen a spate of articles referring to a worsening situation with respect to ‘flu’ and adding a few other ‘infectious diseases’ to the mix.
So let’s take a look at what we’re being told and see if we can work out what’s going on!
A 4th December BBC article proclaims Hospitals facing unprecedented flu season, say NHS bosses and states,
“The number of flu patients in hospital has hit a record high in England for this time of year with NHS leaders warning the country is facing an unprecedented flu season.”
The idea seems to be that this is not normal ‘flu’, but a more severe strain of the ‘virus’ that’s now circulating, which is referred to as ‘super flu’. This ‘new strain’ is claimed to be a mutated H3N2 flu virus.
The headline of another 4th December BBC article reads NHS must take elderly infections more seriously, Chris Whitty warns. It seems that the elderly are a key demographic targeted by this fear-mongering campaign,
“NHS data shows that adults over 70 are much more likely to catch and go on to become severely ill or die from an infection.”
The objective - or at least a part of it - is abundantly obvious, as demonstrated by a 9th December BBC article Mutated H3N2 flu virus is circulating - so should you buy a vaccine this year?
“The H3N2 “subclade K” is a type of seasonal influenza A virus. People have not encountered much of it in recent years.
That means there is less built up immunity against it.
The NHS has already sent out a “flu jab SOS” to vulnerable people.”
The purpose is obviously to promote vaccines but also to encourage the return of measures introduced during the alleged ‘pandemic’, as indicated by another 9th December BBC article entitled Masks to be worn in three hospitals as flu cases surge.
“Over the hospital sites we are asking all of our staff and patients to be wearing masks.”
My question to this is: Did they not read the studies that showed masks were ineffective?
On 9th December, people were merely being ‘asked’ to wear masks and this request only applied to a few hospitals. It seems from a number of recent articles that this is fast becoming a policy for more hospitals and that they are no longer merely ‘asking’.
Interestingly, the article states,
“It said the current H3N2 strain of flu could cause severe symptoms for a week, even for some patients who are already vaccinated.”
My question to this is: What is the point of being vaccinated if, even under their own terms, people could still experience symptoms?
And if symptoms only last a week, why is this such a serious issue?
Isn’t this just another self-limiting condition?
Most, if not quite all, so-called ‘infectious diseases’ are self-limiting and are admitted to last only a few days, or a couple of weeks at most.
Why aren’t more people asking these questions?
Not content with scaring people about ‘flu’, the media expanded their focus to include reference to ‘HIV’, although that shouldn’t be surprising considering it was ‘World AIDS Day’ on 1st December.
The media reports are not merely a reminder that HIV still ‘exists’ - which has never been proven - but that it too is becoming a worsening situation, as indicated by a 1st December BBC article entitled HIV warning to older women as infections increase. The article begins with the claim that,
“Women aged in their 50s and 60s have been urged to practice safe sex after a rise in new cases of HIV in heterosexual groups.”
I’m still contemplating why they have chosen to target that particular demographic. It’s claimed that women in this age group are having unprotected sex because they are menopausal and no longer fear becoming pregnant. But this is a woefully inadequate explanation as far as I’m concerned. Is it perhaps because they represent a ‘low risk’ group that has yet to be brought into the system as a customer base for testing and ‘treatment’?
The article claims,
“Treatments for HIV mean those with the virus can lead a healthy, normal life, unlike in the 1980s and 90s when contracting it was often fatal.”
This is disingenuous, which is putting it mildly. In the 1980s and 90s, it was the treatment that was ‘often fatal’.
In a 30th November BBC article entitled HIV battle is not over, warns It’s a Sin creator, Russell T Davies, the creator of It’s a Sin, is reported as having,
“…warned “the fight is not over” when it comes to eradicating HIV.”
The article also states,
“He said misinformation about the virus made him “despair” and warned we must not “blunder into the future without looking back at the past”.”
I agree - misinformation about the virus makes me despair too. But the misinformation I’m referring to is what is being reported by the mainstream media. My despair is due to the fact that there is no evidence that there is such a pathogenic agent as ‘HIV’ that infects people and can lead to AIDS.
Nevertheless, the July 2025 WHO HIV and AIDS fact sheet states,
“Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a virus that attacks the body’s immune system. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) occurs at the most advanced stage of infection.”
The idea is to encourage people to be tested because,
“There is no cure for HIV infection. It is treated with antiretroviral drugs, which stop the virus from replicating in the body.
Current antiretroviral therapy (ART) does not cure HIV infection but allows a person’s immune system to get stronger. This helps them to fight other infections.
Currently, ART must be taken every day for the rest of a person’s life.”
That last point is wonderful news - for the pharmaceutical industry that is. It is not good for the people taking ART. According to the page entitled Side Effects of HIV Medicines on the NIH website,
“As with most medications, HIV medicines can sometimes cause side effects. Most side effects from HIV medicines are manageable and will not cause serious problems, but a few can be serious.”
What is important to be aware of is the reference to the UN, and indirectly to the 2030 Agenda, also known as the ‘Global Goals’. The article states,
“Davies’ warnings come as UNAIDS, the UN’s joint Aids prevention programme, warned the global response to HIV had suffered its most significant setback in decades due to cuts in global funding.”
The link in the above sentence is to a press release on the UN website entitled UNAIDS releases its 2025 World AIDS Day report: Overcoming disruption, transforming the AIDS response.
On that web page is the statement that,
“After decades of struggle, the global HIV response was within reach of its goal of ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030. The world has come too far—and achieved too much—to allow progress to unravel at this moment of historic opportunity.”
This is little more than an appeal for funds. Just like all of the ‘goals’, this one cannot be achieved because they are starting from the wrong place. In order to solve a problem, it is essential to deal with the root cause - and the medical system does not deal with root causes of health problems, they only provide ‘treatments’.
The reason this is important is because of the goals of the 2030 Agenda with respect to health matters and certain ‘infectious diseases’ in particular, as expressed in SDG 3.3 that aims to,
“…end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.”
The means by which they propose to achieve this ‘goal’ is articulated in SDG 3.8 that aims to,
“Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.”
The point to note in the above is the reference to ‘medicines and vaccines for all’.
I would point out that ‘medicines and vaccines’ are not the means by which people recover their health.
Furthermore, as if ‘super flu’ and ‘HIV’ weren’t sufficient to scare people into submission, it has been decided to include monkeypox - now renamed mpox as if that makes it more palatable - and bring it back under the spotlight.
An 8th December BBC article entitled New mpox strain identified in England makes the claim that,
“A new strain of mpox, previously called monkeypox, has been detected in a person in England, say UK health officials.”
In other words, this is all about a single ‘case’!!
But is mpox even a serious health threat? It would seem not,
“Getting vaccinated remains the best way to protect against severe disease - although an mpox infection is mild for many.”
And is the vaccine effective against the new strain? Again, it would seem not,
“There have been no studies on how well the vaccine protects against this latest strain, although it’s thought there will be a high degree of protection.”
So what’s the bottom line here?
I’m not going to speculate on what ‘they’ are doing, but we can see patterns here in the not-so-subtle references to worsening health issues.
The situation is of course NOT restricted to the UK, however, another ‘pandemic preparedness exercise’ was carried out in the UK a few weeks ago.
It seems to me that the point of all this is to make people believe that the likelihood of another ‘pandemic’ is a question of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’.
The fact is that there never was a ‘pandemic’ in 2020 due to a novel ‘virus’, because there has never been any evidence that demonstrates ‘pathogenic viruses’ exist as described, in other words, as a piece of genetic material in a protein coating that hijacks a cell in order to replicate, thus causing ‘disease’ in the host organism. This applies to all so-called ‘infectious diseases’, whether ‘flu’, mpox or HIV.
The idea that ‘viruses’ have never been proven to cause disease as we’ve been told, still seems to be difficult for many people to accept. But the evidence claimed to provide the ‘proof’ is always indirect, as Mike Stone explains in his recent article The Santa Analogy - link to the article below.
%20%E2%80%93%20Scaled%20(80%25).png){kind=tracking}
The difference between a mistaken belief in the reality of ‘Santa’ and a mistaken belief in the reality of ‘viruses’ however, is enormous; the latter having serious consequences because it permits people to accept the imposition of measures that restrict freedom and medical interventions that have never been proven to enhance health. Nor for that matter, have they been proven to be either safe or effective.
For me, this is all about freedom. The freedom to make our own choices - the only proviso being that our choices do not adversely impact other people.
The belief in ‘pathogenic germs’ encourages people to believe that, just by breathing, they can adversely impact others, but this is based on an unproven idea, and a grossly mistaken one.
Understanding that ‘germs’ are not what we’ve been told they are - that they do not cause diseases that can be transmitted between people - is a huge step towards freedom.
We are not a danger to each other.
Let’s make empowering choices for our lives and for the lives of our loved ones!
Dawn 馃尮
Thank you for your support. 馃檹
.png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
.png){kind=tracking}
