What is served by making the argument that the virus isn't real?

If I were trying to poison pill my own position, which is:

• The virus has a flu-like mortality rate but cold-like mortality distribution (eg. not fatal to infants and small children)
• We have never done widespread testing for a specific strain of a respiratory virus before -- even for symptomatic individuals let alone asymptomatic -- the way we are for WuFlu
• We have never tracked mortality based on infection for a specific strain of a respiratory virus before (eg. "if you tested positive within the last 30 days it is listed as a cause of death") the way we are for WuFlu
• If we did, the graphs would look similarly scary
• None of the "emergency hospitals" that were expected to be used as overflow facilities saw a single patient
• Published models for hospitalization were consistently off by 2 orders of magnitude
• The vaccines that we were told would "end the pandemic" once we reached 70% vaccination rate haven't ended it even with a higher vaccination rate
• Even if we accept the data as-is, the data do not justify the medical fascist state we are living under
• The continued failure of the control mechanisms employed by the medical fascist state -- even if you believe a medical fascist state to be morally justifiable -- do not warrant the support of the institutions currently implementing the medical fascist state.

If I were trying to poison pill all that -- which I believe if you showed a normal person simple newspaper clippings from the past 18 months and led them through to your conclusion they could easily follow even if they didn't necessarily agree with you -- I would tack on "and to top it all off, the virus isn't even real!" Because even if that's true I don't see how it changes how one responds to everything else that is presented, and it significantly increases the burden of proof for the person making all those other arguments.