“The welfare of the people...has always been the alibi of tyrants....giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” Albert Camus
So here we are, over a year later; still wearing masks, still either in lock-down or under the threat of it. And the only way out of it, eventually, is to get vaccinated with an experimental drug; if you don't, you won't get your passport and you won't pass Go. But it feels more natural now, more normal, doesn't it? We're more used to it, this New Normal. That's where we are; these are facts. We can debate why it's happened, but we can't dispute that it HAS happened.
And now we're being told that vaccines have a delayed response. If there is an outbreak, we should go back to lock-downs.(1) The Woke Calendar's Mr January, Justin Trudeau, in parliament, states that the vaccinations don't work; “Vaccines on their own are not enough to keep us safe”. Already, the predominant attitude to the vaccine is that people feel they need to take it in order to have a life, not because they believe they need it. Covid variants vaccines are already being manufactured for next year and, of course, they won't need to be tested, because they are so similar to the current, emergency, experimental ones.
And now they are doing clinical trials in children; despite the fact that no children without underlying conditions have died in the UK and very few have worldwide. So why do they want to vaccinate kids? It makes no sense, medically. It doesn't make sense for any healthy people under seventy to take the vaccine, either. The authorities don't offer the flu shot to these demographics and Covid is even less of a risk. So, why are people who are at miniscule risk being coerced into taking the vaccine? Maybe because it isn't actually about the vaccine, after all.
We have been in the grip of a mass hysteria. There are some things we can show to be objective reality, some things that are almost certainly true due to a surfeit of circumstantial evidence, some things that we can only guess at because the information is in the hands of people who don't want to divulge it. But we can be absolutely certain that we've been lied to on a number of matters. The what, in effect. We can also be sure about who did it and by what means, the how. The why is, necessarily, less easy to pin down absolutely, because it's always that way when you try to divine intent. Was it deliberate, malign or were they on the side of the angels? Did they even mean to? And so, at some point, we are going to have to confront the question that always crops up in the end; 'are they stupid or is there more to it?'
What do we know to be objectively false? Things that we have been told that were actually never true to begin with or which turned out to be false, but which were never corrected. This is a long list;
(a) Covid 19 isn’t as serious as they say it is. It isn't; even without efficacious treatment, for the most part, the virus has at least a 99.8% survival rate.
(b) Asymptomatic spread is a serious, scientifically proven viral phenomenon. It isn't; or, at least, it wasn't before Covid 19.
(c) Asymptomatic spread is the silent killer with this virus: another lie. At worst, even within households, there's a 0.7% chance of asymptomatic spread.
(d) Covid 19 is a novel coronavirus; therefore, we have no pre-existing immunity. Wrong. Between 20-50% of people have natural immunity, due to antibodies created when they suffered from previous coronaviruses such as the common cold.
(e) Herd immunity is unachievable, or maybe it is but the cost is too high, or 70/80/90% of people need to be infected before it can be achieved. Another falsehood. If the Spanish flu only needed an infection rate of 30%, why would Covid need three times that number? Herd immunity may well have been achieved last summer and, given pre existing immunity, only 10-20% of the population needed to be infected.
(f) Mandatory lock-downs were necessary. They weren't. They were unprecedented. And, additionally, they delayed herd immunity and applied selection pressure to the virus, forcing it to mutate more rapidly and to become more transmissable.
(g) Lock-downs saved lives. Unverifiable. What evidence there is suggests that lock-downs do nothing of the sort and that, via the law of unintended (but eminently predictable) consequences, they actually cost lives.
(h) Lock-downs were legal. Not in the US and the UK and almost certainly not elsewhere, also.
(i) We had no option but to wait for vaccines. A huge lie.
(j) There were no viable treatments for Covid. Hydroxychloroquine was already known to be a treatment and prophylactic for SARS-CoV. Ivermectin, azithromycin,Vitamin D, Zinc and others were also found to be excellent amelioraters of the virus.
(k) The 'vaccines' are vaccines. To the layperson, they are not. They do not prevent you from getting the virus.
(l) The vaccines are safe. A statement that cannot be authenticated and, whether it turns out to be true or not in the long run, is still a lie when asserted in the here and now. There have been any number of serious adverse events in Phase II trials. Nobody knows the long term effects. These types of vaccines have never been trialed in humans before. It's one vast, unsafe, unconscionable experiment.
(m) Vaccines will save lives. Not designed that way, no way of ascertaining if they will, never tested on the target demographic of elderly and infirm humans, never tested on those seriously ill with the virus.
(n) Vaccines have been tested on animals. This one is more of a half truth rather than outright lie, but the effect is the same; you'll still believe something you shouldn't. These vaccines were trialed on animals, but these trials were contemporaneous with the first human trials. They are supposed to be done before the progression to trials in humans, for obvious reasons, but they weren't.
(o) There is no evidence of causation between the AstraZenica and J&J vaccines and abnormal blood clotting or thinning. There is and this was known over a decade ago and yet still the vaccines were authorized with an Emergency Medical Authority, both in Europe and the US.(2)
(p) There are no issues with the other vaccines. There are. Any vaccine that targets the spike protein will produce similar problems. It's a class issue, not specific to a particular vaccine.
(q) It is necessary, for public health, to prove that you are vaccinated. It isn't. The vaccines have only been designed to try and prevent a mild disease from becoming serious in healthy adults. Vaccinated people can probably still transmit the virus. Vaccine passports are an obvious Trojan Horse.
(r) It was safe to get your flu jab this year. As the coronavirus is allegedly novel and the consequences of co-infection are unknown, as both the flu and Covid affect the respiratory tract, as the vast majority of those most at risk were cooped up inside in an environment tailor made to aid the spread of infection and as it is known that there is a weakening of natural immunity in the aftermath of a flu jab, how could they possibly know? And it certainly doesn't look like it from the figures.
(s) Covid 19 definitely came from nature, with no human intervention. It's impossible to make that claim and no proof has been found, probably because the preponderance of evidence is that it was manufactured in the Wuhan lab, a facility that was working on gain of function research on bat coronaviruses and which claims to be the repository of Covid's nearest genetic relative.
(t) Even if it didn't come from nature, and came from the Wuhan lab itself, it was an accident. This cannot be asserted; to peddle this contention as reality is to mislead. We don't know if it was an accident or deliberate.
(u) The variants that are now predominant are a huge threat and resistant to the vaccines. The South African and Brazilian variants may well be resistant to the effects of the vaccines, as the vaccines were engineered to counter the Wuhan strain and, if sufficient mutations have occurred on the spike protein of the virus, the existing vaccines may be ineffective. This is because the vaccines are very specific and only target one part of the virus. So far, so truthful. But what they are not telling you is that natural immunity will not be compromised, because natural immunity targets all of the virus and even the most distant variant is still 99.7% similar to the original strain. This divergence is far less than that what would be required to render existing natural immunity invalid.
(v) China has acted in good faith. It hasn't, no matter how much money they pay the WHO to tell us otherwise.
(w) You can believe the numbers. Not even close to true. We know that deaths were recorded with a methodology that had never been used before. We know that the figures were measuring people who died 'with Covid', not of Covid. And, even with that caveat, we know that some of these deaths were certified without any tests for Covid. And, most obvious of all, we know that it's impossible to test all the people all the time, so there are vastly more 'cases' out there than have ever been recorded, which means that the case fatality rate is even smaller than 0.2%.
(x) The PCR test is reliable. It isn't. The false positive rate is between 80-90%.
(y) Masks work. They don't. They increase the odds of you becoming unwell and do very little to prevent viral spread.
(z) Social distancing works. It doesn't. Aerosols containing the virus in the shape of virions hang in the air well after an infected individual has left. Whist we're on the subject of infectivity and junk science, there's only a 1/10,000 chance you can contract Covid from hard surfaces, too.
All of this information has been gleaned from reputable academic studies or government sources. It is all verifiable. Almost every part of the Covid experience is a sham. We have been comprehensively lied to and the veil has still not been lifted for the vast majority of people who still believe all or some of these falsehoods. If this is so, who is it that is gaslighting us?
I would say that it is governments and their allies. Not just state allies, but supranational entities who are able to say and do things that individual countries cannot. Let's use the WHO as an example. Who thought it needed to exist in the first place? Did anybody except the political class have any say in it? I would ask this regardless of the fact that the organisation is a flagrantly political and corrupt. I'd ask this even if the organisation was, on balance, useful. The point is not about usefulness; it's about the presumption and arrogance of those who govern us.
At no point have any of them sought to make their case to the people that elect them. They have created unelected, unaccountable organisations that have assumed quasi legal status. They have circumvented democracy entirely. Why are we listening to the WHO? Before you think that's an overreaction, think about the authority they have over all of us. Were we not following their advice, living under their edicts, at least in part? You have a closed circuit; governments create and fund the WHO, who then give governments 'advice' which the governments enact. In a world full of angels, it might work. In a world full of men, the opportunities for bad actors are manifest.
To those of us who have lived through other scares that turned out to be not what they seemed, not just SARS and MERS, but lead in petrol, asbestos, salmonella, listeria and the granddaddy of them all, climate change (and I'm willing to bet that you still think that some or all of those scares were real), a healthy dollop of scepticism was necessary from the beginning. When you've seen the familiar preamble a few times before, you are less likely to be hoodwinked. But the unquestioning never made it beyond 'Covid will kill us all in our beds'.
Nonetheless, you may be part of that cohort which acknowledges that, whilst the authorities lied, they did so out of concern for us. That they erred on the side of caution. That they understood that certain people were too selfish or too reckless and that we had to be protected from them; the many had to suffer because of the few. So, we couldn't rely on voluntary isolation; it needed to be mandatory and there needed to be laws and arrests and fines. If the well intentioned got persecuted too, well you crack eggs to make omelettes. But the safety of the amorphous lump, society, is paramount.
And make sure you let the 'deniers' know how you feel, especially on social media, but in person too if you're brave enough. Shame people into wearing masks; question them if they are outside without an obvious need to be (in your eyes); bang on about 'saving lives'; join the synchronized clap for the NHS. But, whatever you do, don't stop to engage your critical faculties. Don't stop to look at the world around you, to realize that, actually, your friends aren't dropping like flies.
There is a certain character type who loves all this and there are far too many of them; people who think they know best and you, by definition, don't if you disagree with them. People who think they can tell you what to do. People who are, quite frankly, too stupid or gullible to ask obvious questions. People who believe, implicitly, in what the authorities tell them (or CCN or the BBC). People who would have been Stasi informers in the GDR – after all, one in three were.
And the powers-that-be know these people exist – they play to these people; these people are the enforcement arm of the state. There aren't enough cops, in any country, to keep a regime in power, to make a people do what the powerful want them to do. The population has to be involved, whether by use of fear or propaganda, or a combination of both. The people have to be enjoined to police themselves. I think we can safely say that people like this, whether in positions of authority or not, have been everywhere and they have been in the ascendant. Our compassion has been weaponized against us.
What if it's all a means to an end, if they are taking advantage of a good, self generated crisis? Perhaps we can envisage some sort of scheme to enrich their cronies in the vaccine companies, perhaps there is a future sinecure in the wings, perhaps the likes of Pfizer and Moderna have spent much more on 'lobbying' than we think. Perhaps our leaders invested so much of their political capital in vaccines and the efficacy of lock-downs until the vaccines were available, that they couldn't back down?
And then, once they'd realized that the original vaccines were calibrated for the Wuhan strain, which was no longer the dominant variant and they've subsequently ended up in a position where the vaccines don't perform as advertised, there is always likely to be a new variant in the wings and we have ended up in the same multi year battle as we have with flu. New variants, new vaccines; a never ending story.
Once again, are they that stupid? Or is there more to it? The scale doesn't make sense; it's too big, not just in terms of profit, but in human and societal cost. I think there are several other factors that point to a more sinister intention. The lies we have been told, the sudden appearance of vaccine passports, their attitude to countries or states who have bucked the trend; the powers-that-be have been desperate to avoid control groups, such as Sweden, Texas, Florida. Without these examples, which have consistently undermined the party line, they can more easily suppress existing science, bribe or threaten doctors, rely on the media to cheer-lead and silence dissent and sail ever onwards.
And what if the objective all along was vaccine passports? Not the final destination, but a stepping stone. Also perhaps to help remove Trump, to take our attention away from Brexit? Perhaps those latter reasons were secondary targets or just a passing opportunity to be seized. And maybe the whole sorry episode has been gestating for longer than we think:
“Around 2014, world leaders began signalling their intent to swap out The War on Terror for a new narrative. That fall, President Obama hosted the first major meeting of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) – which he later elevated to a national priority – and soon thereafter pronounced the terrorist threat “over-inflated.””(3)
And purely by coincidence, the world's greatest philanthropist (and funder of the WHO, large investor in vaccine companies, climate alarmist and vaccine expert), in collaboration with the World Economic Forum funded something called Event 201 in October 2019, which was a high level, pandemic planning exercise.(4) What incredible foresight.
I don't think we're anywhere near finished. People that actually focus on the numbers, people who think the pandemic will pass are completely missing the point. 'Case' numbers can be manipulated at any time; just expand the testing operation. More testing means more positives, even if they are not real positives. And what happens when winter rolls around again? Do you think that they are going to let up while they are on a roll? When no-one is stopping them?
They won't. And watch out for mandatory vaccinations. In the US, there is already precedent; wholly discredited precedent, but that won't stop them.(5) And I wonder whether the medical database housing all that information on all those good citizens (a privacy busting precedent by any reckoning and the precursor to more technological snooping) will be national or supranational? Would you care to place a bet?
At present, the derogation of our rights seems to be gathering pace. History tells us that governments do not readily return power that they have usurped and this will be no different. We will swap house arrest for the first iteration of what will transform into a form of social credit score if we let it; a New Normal that looks nothing like the normal we’ve left behind. Rest assured, a lot of people won't mind that. They will see nothing wrong in it, no lessening of autonomy.
But a significant minority, the people who have paid lip service to all the recent restrictions placed upon us, who have so far found workarounds to minimize the inconvenience, the ones who are thinking of taking the vaccine because they feel they have to, not because they want to...they may turn out to be the most important group of all. What will they do when they can't avoid what's happening any more? Will they fold or will they finally find their voice?
It's difficult to comprehend quite how much we have been manipulated and lied to. It's natural to recoil from the obvious facts, the necessary conclusions. It's as if it's all happening too fast and too much foundational trust is being swept away, all at once. But the what and the how are indisputable, if you have the courage to confront the facts. It's only the why that is denied to us just barely, at present. But I have a strong feeling that we'll find out for sure soon enough.
Citations
Michelle Walenski, DCD Director, press conference. 13/4/21.
Maha Othman, et al Adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia: the role of vonWillebrand factor and P-selectin in mediating accelerated platelet clearance, The American Society of Hematology 2007
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11