Saturday, August 15, 2020

CDC: Number of people seriously considering suicide skyrockets amid COVID



A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlights the emotional toll that the coronavirus pandemic is taking on Americans.

According to the results of a survey conducted between June 24 and June 30 and released Friday, more than one out of ten respondents reported they had "seriously considered suicide in past 30 days."

In a summary noting that communities “have faced mental health challenges related to COVID-19–associated morbidity, mortality, and mitigation activities,” the CDC reported 10.7 percent of adult respondents weighed suicide.

That number is more than double the percentage of adults who said in a 2018 Department of Health and Human Services survey that they had considered taking their own life in the past 12 months.

"Suicidal ideation was also elevated; approximately twice as many respondents reported serious consideration of suicide in the previous 30 days than did adults in the United States in 2018, referring to the previous 12 months (10.7% versus 4.3%)," the CDC said.

In another troubling find, 25.5 percent of respondents age 18-24 reported suicidal ideation.

“During June 24–30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19,” the report said.

“Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and unpaid adult caregivers reported having experienced disproportionately worse mental health outcomes, increased substance use, and elevated suicidal ideation.”

The true scope of the psychological impact of the disease and its effects on society revealed that four out of 10 respondents reported experiencing at least one adverse mental health issue.

“Overall, 40.9% of respondents reported at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition, including symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder (30.9%), symptoms of a trauma- and stressor-related disorder (TSRD) related to the pandemic (26.3%), and having started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19 (13.3%),” the report found.

The report said that 30.7 percent of those who identified themselves as unpaid caregivers for other adults said they had seriously considered taking their own life.

The study on the adverse effects of the pandemic also found that men (12.6 percent) were more likely than women (8.9 percent) to report having thoughts of suicide.

“Suicidal ideation was more prevalent among males than among females,” the report stated.

The report concluded that some groups of Americans were more likely than others to report a decline in mental health.

“Mental health conditions are disproportionately affecting specific populations, especially young adults, Hispanic persons, black persons, essential workers, unpaid caregivers for adults, and those receiving treatment for preexisting psychiatric conditions,” the CDC said.

Among all groups, adult unpaid caregivers for other adults had the second-highest share of respondents who reported feeling suicidal thoughts.

The only group with a higher share was adults with post-traumatic stress disorder, 44.8 percent of whom reported seriously considering suicide in the past 30 days.

The report surveyed 5,412 adult Americans, who were invited to participate in the web-based survey.

Author and syndicated columnist Phil Kerpen shared the results of the study CDC report on Twitter:

As CDC director Redfield has said, the coronavirus "has very limited pathogenicity under age 45."

Lockdowns, college closures, sports cancellations. These things are driving young people toward suicide.

It's unconscionable.

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) August 13, 2020

Here is the best historical comparison we have, which several have asked for.

These numbers, however, were for a question asking have you seriously considered suicide in the past 12 months. The new survey asked past 30 days.

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) August 14, 2020

Kerpen previously shared a video of remarks from CDC Director Robert Redfield, who said last month: "But there has been another cost that we've seen, particularly in high schools.

"We're seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID," he added.

"We're seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess, that we had as background, than we are seeing deaths from COVID."

CDC re school closures, particularly high schools: "We're seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We're seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess, that we had as background, than we are seeing deaths from COVID."

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 29, 2020

Many experts in the early days of the social and economic lockdowns due to the coronavirus warned of the pandemic's adverse effects on mental health.

Speaking with Fox News in March, President Donald Trump warned that prolonged lockdowns could lead to "thousands" of suicides.

“Look, you’re going to lose a number of people to the flu, but you’re going to lose more people by putting a country into a massive recession or depression,” he said.

“You’re going to lose people. You’re going to have suicides by the thousands. You’re going to have all sorts of things happen. You’re going to have instability,” Trump added.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post CDC: Number of people seriously considering suicide skyrockets amid COVID appeared first on WND.


Conservative Journalist Arrested & Jailed Ahead Of 'ShadowGate' Documentary Release

Update: While weaver's arrest appears to be for unrelated charges according to the Daily Dot... When asked about the claim that Weaver was arrested for exposing the deep state, the administrator laughed.


Lockdown Restrictions Are A Test To See How Much Tyranny Americans Will Accept

The pandemic lockdowns are a complicated issue, and that is absolutely deliberate. The point of 4th Generation psychological warfare is to present the target individual or population with a hard choice – a no-win scenario. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.




Last week, I was excited when I saw Millie Weaver’s tweet with the trailer of her new documentary, ‘ShadowGate’ to be released yesterday.

Yesterday morning, I was instead appalled to see the livestream she posted of herself getting arrested, without a warrant in front of her small son, on a Grand Jury indictment for “burglary”.

In the hours that have since elapsed, what I’ve gleaned from Twitter is that her husband, Gavin Wince was also arrested and they are currently in the custody of the Portage County Sheriff’s Office in Ohio, where they are being held without bond until they appear before Judge Doherty on Monday.

Spiro Skouras contacted the Portage County Sheriff’s Office, who confirmed that Weaver was served a “secret indictment”. The charges she faces are tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice and domestic violence.

By early afternoon, one of the two whistleblowers seen in the film, Tore posted Weaver’s blockbuster film to her own YouTube account and as I watched it, it was all I could do to avoid having my brains splatter all over the wall.

‘ShadowGate’ features two whistleblowers, Tore and Patrick Bergy, who describe a network of government contractors in the Intelligence Community with access to the NSA’s dragnet surveillance and AI programs and who exploit this information to blackmail and control politicians and other powerful people. These Globalist traitors are the primary administrators of the Fourth Generation warfare being waged against the American people as we speak.

The film details Interactive Internet Activities (IIA) and the military psychological warfare weapon, Shadownet, which is used to control the public narrative through the Fake News, to fix elections, to organize the BLM riots among other things.

Bergy explains how Shadownet was built by the military with US tax dollars and how General James L Jones, Obama’s National Security Advisor took this intellectual property and privatized it for personal gain.

Bergy says Shadownet was used heavily in the Ukraine Color Revolution by Paul Manafort and that an entire cottage industry has since sprung up, with multiple companies using this same software.

Watch it before this gets taken down.

Alexandra Bruce

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce



How We Could Wind Up Banned From Discussing An October Surprise On Social Media This Election


In what it calls an effort to make itself “a more reliable source for election-related news and information,” YouTube has announced that it will be removing “content that contains hacked information, the disclosure of which may interfere with democratic processes, such as elections and censuses.”

“For example, videos that contain hacked information about a political candidate shared with the intent to interfere in an election,” adds the Google-owned video sharing platform.

 — @dailydigger19

This by itself is an alarming assault on human communication and press freedom. If there is authentic information out there about either of the candidates who are up for the most powerful elected position on the planet, the world is entitled to know about it, regardless of how that information was acquired. Monopolistic tech oligarchs have no business barring us from learning about and discussing that information.

Immensely powerful people should not be permitted to have secrets from the public anyway. The amount of power one has should be directly inverse to the amount of secrecy they are permitted to have. If you’re anywhere near the presidency of the United States of America, the secrecy you are entitled to should be zero.

If a hacker is able to get ahold of accurate information about Donald Trump or Joe Biden, that information is ours. We’re entitled to it. Anyone who tries to obstruct our access to that information is stealing from us. It’s absolutely ridiculous that we have a society where people are permitted to both rule over us and keep secrets from us as it is without government-aligned tech plutocrats silencing our attempts to learn what those secrets might be.

Moreover, no Youtube moderator will be in any position to definitively say whether most information that comes out is hacked. They’d only be able to do what the mass media did with the 2016 WikiLeaks drops and cite unproven assertions by opaque intelligence agencies who have a proven track record of lying, assertions which turned out to be far more dubious than most Americans realize. Documents or video could be leaked about a candidate and US intelligence agencies could just declare it a “hack” and have any Youtube videos about it immediately censored.

As Alan MacLeod explains for MintPress News:

“[T]he great majority of leaked information — the lifeblood of investigative journalism — is anonymous. Often, like in the cases of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Reality Winner, whistleblowers face serious consequences if their names become attached to documents exposing government or corporate malfeasance. But without a name to go with a document, the difference between leaked data and hacked data is impossible to define. Thus, powerful people and organizations could claim data was hacked, rather than leaked, and simply block all discussion of the matter on the platform.”

 — @couragefound

So this in and of itself is an outrage. But the way things are playing out it could wind up being a lot worse if damning information about a candidate surfaces prior to the November election.

We already know from experience that social media giants tend to follow in each other’s footsteps whenever there’s a significant step in the direction of censorship, like their coordinated cross-platform removals of alternative media outlets, accounts from US-targeted nations, and people who have been labeled “conspiracy theorists”.

So there’s already reason to be concerned that Youtube’s new attack on press freedoms will spread to social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook. Add in the fact that these platforms are openly coordinating with each other and with the US government to silence speech deemed “online meddling” and “election interference” and it looks a lot more likely.

The New York Times published an article on Wednesday titled “Google, Facebook and Others Form Tech Coalition to Secure U.S. Election”, later changed to “Google, Facebook and Others Broaden Group to Secure U.S. Election”.

“Facebook, Google and other major tech companies said on Wednesday that they had added new partners and met with government agencies in their efforts to secure the November election,” NYT reports. “The group, which is seeking to prevent the kind of online meddling and foreign interference that sullied the 2016 presidential election, previously consisted of some of the large social media firms, including Twitter and Microsoft in addition to Facebook and Google. Among the new participants is the Wikimedia Foundation.”

 — @caitoz

So if information emerges about a candidate in an “October surprise” in a way that can be credibly spun as a “hack” like the 2016 WikiLeaks drops were, it’s entirely likely that we will see some interference in people’s ability to communicate about it on not just one but multiple social media platforms. How much communication interference we’d be subjected to is unknown at this time, but it certainly looks like there are measures in place to at least implement some under certain circumstances.

Imagine if documents or video footage were posted online somewhere and we’d get blocked from sharing its URLS on Facebook or suspended for posting screenshots of it on Twitter. The way iron-fisted censorship practices are already unfolding, it’s a possibility that looks not at all remote.

Anyway, something to be on alert for.


Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2



Friday, August 14, 2020

Breaking: Infowars Reporter Arrested On Video

Infowars reporter Millie Weaver uploaded a livestream video of a police officer showing up to her home claiming a grand jury indicted her and that she is under arrest. In the video, Weaver said she never received any notice in the mail and had “no idea why” she was being arrested.


BREAKING: Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty to altering evidence in Russia probe

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith has agreed to plead guilty to a charge of altering a document in the Russia collusion probe, the first charges to be brought in the investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham, two sources told Just the News.


The Truth About Internet Censorship



Let’s play the game, “Will I get banned today because of this video?”

In the strange time of 2020, there is no tool more powerful for controlling the masses than political correctness. It’s what those who seek to control us use as justification to manipulate the information that we see. If you can control the majority of information, then you can control the majority of people, in which case, you can manipulate political outcomes.

And today, these platforms have become an extremely powerful propaganda tool, based on declassified records of contracts and Freedom of Information requests. We know that DARPA, the NSA and figures connected to the intelligence community were some of the earliest sponsors of these Big Tech companies, like Google and Facebook. DARPA has even funded experiments on developing tools to identify misinformation on social media and counter it with what they deem as “truthful information”, reducing the adversary’s ability to manipulate events.

What this points to is that these platforms have the ability to be puppeted and weaponized for nefarious and political purposes, even by its owners, through things like shadowbanning. Now, when left alone, these platforms are the most powerful way to disseminate information to millions of voters. There’s nothing else that even comes close to competing with Facebook, YouTube and Twitter for this; it’s truly the new digital public square.

But every single day these platforms manipulate information which favors the establishment, upon which that media cartels have built their kingdoms, normalizing the insane status quo and manufacturing support for agendas which bolster it, until eventually people not only believe in talking points that are being promoted, they parrot them as truth and become aggressive against anyone who questions it or dissents from it.

In 2012, Facebook conducted secret psychological tests on his unknowing users to see if they could influence their emotions through influencing the news feed information that they saw. They found that by manipulating the news information, they could influence the mood of their users, although I’m sure, from their intelligence-sponsored inceptions, these platforms have always been used as a tool for psychological manipulation and propaganda purposes.

For example, YouTube openly manipulates information all the time and they refer to it as “authoritative content”. What this really means is “suppressing independent content while propping up legacy media” – which of course can never be biased or wrong or have any sort of political or financial motivations – which are owned and puppeted by elite billionaires with political and financial motivations.

But if you question this official narrative, even if you have a mountain of sources and evidence, you know like what they used to call “journalism”, what people used to win Pulitzers for – well now, you’re just an “Alt-Right troll conspiracy theorist and you are the physical manifestation of Hitler’s ghost” for even mentioning it.

These tech titans will lie under oath that they don’t manipulate users or information and unfortunately at these hearings, the questions are asked by people who don’t understand how to set the date and time on their iPhone, let alone how these platforms even work.

And most of the people asking the questions, especially Democrats receive financial contributions from these Big Tech companies, like Google. And while some representatives like Jim Jordan clearly got the message right in the most recent hearing, will anything actually be done about it this time or is this just a performance?

Here’s a twitter screenshot leaked from an underground community after Twitter was recently hacked but if you post this screenshot to Twitter it will be removed and you might get your account suspended, as it seemingly shows proof of manual intervention capabilities, such as banning trends and banning searches – you know, things they claim that they don’t do, even under oath.

Based on the accounts that they delete and the ones that they promote, the bias is obvious. Seemingly, all of these Big Tech platforms are working in tandem with the same political agenda right now. We’re three hours until midnight on America. The fate of the Western World will be determined by the next election and these monopolies that were created by the government who spy on us are now being used to politically influence people; effectively rigging the election.

Russian trolls posting a few memes on Facebook was considered subversion of our democracy? How is this not a million times worse? But as long as Biden wins, not only will they never have to face consequences for doing this, the talk about Anti-trust laws will die down to a whisper.

There is no greater threat currently to our democracy than this and likely, nothing will ever actually be done about it for the very reason that something needs to be done about it, because they have too much power they have too much wealth and they have the ability to crush and manipulate dissenting voices.

Across the service, they just Control-ALT-Deleted at least 7,000 Twitter accounts showing any support for QAnon, which can be as innocuous as these memes and Twitter says they did this because of safety. Now, is this me making you unsafe? Is it hurting you? Of course not the purpose of this was clearly political, as QAnon on supporters make up a notable faction of Trump supporters and there is an election in a few short months.

There are some very powerful people and organizations who do not want Trump in office, that these social media companies capitulate to. One big example is the Anti-Defamation League or ADL, which represents itself as an “anti-hate organization” but something that this organization really doesn’t want people talking about is that in 1993, it was caught illegally conspiring with the police to engage in a massive spy ring. The information that they stole was sold to influence foreign politics. The ADL was also created to honor the memory of a convicted child rapist and murderer named Leo Frank and it’s this very pedophile apologist organization that has decided to be the moral arbiter for the Internet.

They have their claws deep into most of these social media platforms and are blackmailing them with threats of trying to turn off advertisers if they fail to capitulate to their politically-cancerous demands. ADL CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt is the face of Internet censorship and if you refuse to join their advertising blockade, they will label you as supporters of racism and whatever other insults they can use to shame people into submission.

Actually, Mr. Greenblatt, elling “Fire!” in a crowded theater refers to a Supreme Court case called Shank vs US,  which was actually about disobeying the draft. This was effectively overturned in 1969, after the Brandenburg vs Ohio case, which set a new legal precedent for incitement of violence.

In order for speech to be classified as such, the threat has to be very specific and not only very likely to happen but to happen very soon – and even if someone did legally incite violence on a platform like Twitter, that is up to the actual legal system to decide, not you which is a good thing since you clearly don’t understand the very law that you are using to justify your oppressive actions.

All [Jonathan Greenblatt is] trying to do is censor the new digital public square for political reasons – and that’s not surprising, since almost everyone at the ADL is a Democrat and [Greenblatt] worked as a special assistant to Obama.

No, there is a perfectly good Terms of Service already built. It’s called the First Amendment. Any censoring of speech that isn’t actually illegal is about control.

In order to justify this political censorship, they will always say that differing opinion are “misinformation” or “hate speech” and that we are all supposedly far too stupid to decide these things for ourselves. So therefore, it’s harmful to the public and they must step in and protect us from evil ideas and memes.

Of course, this is really about control and it always has been. If censorship policies were actually about keeping people safe Twitter’s target would be pedophiles – which are rampant on their platform. In fact, last year, statistics from the Internet Watch Foundation found that Twitter is responsible for half of the child abuse material found online.

But rather than dealing with this, Twitter seemingly changed its guidelines last March to allow public discussion about attraction towards minors. So from this, I can only assume that Twitter, much like the ADL either supports or sympathizes with pedophiles.

Yeah, talking about diddling kids on Twitter is just fine, as long as you don’t post Donald Trump memes. The only reason anyone to the right of Karl Marx is still allowed on Twitter is to give it the illusion that they tolerate differing opinions but they don’t. This censorship and culling of dissenters has been going on for years now but in 2020, it’s a victory lap to suppress Wrong Think around the world before the Election by using political correctness as justification.

Soon, Twitter will be nothing more than a 30-million person circle jerk of Blue Checkmarks further emboldening each other’s coldest takes.

If i was the CEO of Twitter, I would be less concerned about what conservatives are tweeting and more concerned about how a teenager was able to hack in and gain access to some of the biggest accounts on the website. We’re supposed to get rid of TikTok now, because China is supposedly using it to spy on us but when the American government uses social media to spy on us, as exposed by Edward Snowden, nothing is done about it.

It’s weird that we’re told to care about people having their rights taken away and being controlled by authoritarian forces when it happens in China but when it happens here we celebrate it. “Oh, thank you for censoring those people that had different ideas in me. I wouldn’t want to actually learn something outside of the established narrative that I’m being force-fed.”

And each day, the elite minority further subverts our speech and freedom and we aren’t even allowed to acknowledge that, without the risk of it destroying our lives. Because of that most people are not speaking out and those who are are censored anyway.

The ultimate outcome that they’re going to achieve is total control of speech and subversion of our democracy. They’re winning. That was their plan and they’re achieving it.

I don’t know how it could even be stopped at this point. Most of this has been done as a Trojan Horse named “political correctness” and it’s being weaponized in the dumbest and worst way possible. This type of manipulation has been going on for so long, that it’s actually created Cancel Culture. And now we’re all supposed to believe that censorship and destruction of people, objects and ideas is a good thing for our society and that it’s “virtuous”.

The free market can’t survive without competition and in order for that, there needs to be monopoly-busting of these platforms that likely wouldn’t have even become the monoliths that they are today without government intervention in the first place. This is why Anti-trust laws were created. For this very reason, these platforms need to be regulated as a digital public square.

Alexandra Bruce

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce




In Part One of this article I laid out the argument Huxley’s dystopian vision of the future had played out over many decades, but now I observe Orwell’s darker vision in motion since the start of this century.



“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.


Testing the Most Effective Method To Manipulate Minds


By the looks of it, we are about to face one of the most aggressive vaccine campaigns ever created. According to Reuters,1 the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign come November, provided the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gives one or more vaccine candidates the green light.

Considering former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb2 is now on Pfizer’s board of directors,3 and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is one of the lead candidates, jaded minds might assume the FDA isn’t going to put up any significant roadblocks.

According to Reuters, the COVID-19 vaccine campaign “will likely be compressed into a short period of time, around four to six weeks, to eliminate any lag between when Americans are alerted to the vaccine and then they can get vaccinated.” An unnamed “senior White House administration official” is quoted saying:4

“The fine line we are walking is getting the American people very excited about vaccines and missing expectations versus having a bunch of vaccines in the warehouse and not as many people want to get it. You may not hear a lot about promoting vaccines over the airwaves in August and September but you’ll be overwhelmed by it come November.”

It’s still unclear exactly when a vaccine will be available, but it could be as early as October, or as late as January 2021. According to the administration official, the advertising campaign for the vaccine will be tailored to specific subsets of the population, depending on the people the vaccine is likely to benefit the most. Such details are expected to be teased out during ongoing clinical trials.

Study Underway to Identify Most Effective Messaging

The idea that the vaccine promotion might be more “overwhelming” than what we’re used to is further supported by a clinical study5 on, the aim of which is to identify the most “persuasive messages for COVID-19 vaccine uptake.”

The study, conducted by Yale University, will test “different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available.”

A total of 4,000 participants will be randomized to receive one of 12 different messages (10 messaging variations, one control message and one baseline message), after which they will “compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available.” The messaging slants under investigation include:6

Personal freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom, and how society, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, can preserve its personal freedom.

Economic freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s economic freedom, and how society, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, can preserve its economic freedom.

Self-interest message — A message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health, even if one is young and healthy, and how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.

Community interest message — A message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones: The more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one’s loved ones will get sick. Society must work together and all get vaccinated.

Economic benefit message — A message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated.

Guilt message — A message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. Therefore, the best way to protect them is not only by getting vaccinated, but to get society to work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then a test question asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and then spread the disease.

Embarrassment message — A message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community: The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.

Anger message — The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. It then asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.

Trust in science message — A message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community, that vaccination is backed by science: If one doesn’t get vaccinated that means that one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or you are one who ignores science.

Not brave message — A message which describes how firefighters, doctors and front line medical workers are brave: Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.

While the study was completed July 8, 2020, results have yet to be publicly posted. Clearly, this is not the first time researchers have investigated the most effective propaganda angles, but the types of messages listed above really demonstrate just how insidious these types of campaigns can be.

It’s really all about manipulation — pushing the right mental and emotional hot-buttons to fire up a desired response, all while overriding more logical thought processes.

The propaganda push has already started, it seems, with USA Today publishing an article7 titled “Defeat COVID-19 by Requiring Vaccination for All. It’s Not Un-American, It’s Patriotic.” This is precisely the kind of PR we can expect more of in the months to come.

The manipulation aspect is equally if not more evident in the listed secondary outcome measures, which include:

  • Participants’ confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine
  • Participants’ willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
  • Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
  • The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate

Effective Totalitarianism Relies on You Enjoying Servitude

A quote from Aldous Huxley’s dystopian 1932 book, “Brave New World,” reads:

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”

Huxley’s quote starts off a thought-provoking article8 on The Burning Platform that reviews the rise of totalitarianism and parallels presented in popular works of fiction. The author notes Huxley’s book came on the heels of Edward Bernays’ 1928 book, “Propaganda” — a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the historical foundations of modern public relations. The article points out that, in his book, Bernays:9

“… revealed the existence of an invisible government who used propaganda to manipulate the minds of the public to insure those controlling the levers of power were able to engineer their desired outcomes.”

A contemporary to Huxley and Bernays was George Orwell, who wrote the cult classic “1984.” In 1949, Huxley reportedly wrote to Orwell, stating he believed the world’s rulers would soon “discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient as instruments of government than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.”10

At its heart, technocracy is an economic system, not a political one. The system also hinges on the skillful implementation of social engineering.

Huxley believed the nightmarish existence presented in “1984” was “destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in ‘Brave New World'” and that this transition would be the result of “a felt need for increased efficiency.” While Huxley did not use the word “technocracy,” that’s essentially what he was talking about.

Technocracy 101

Technocracy is an economic and social engineering system that got started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems.

The Trilateral Commission’s co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller. Technocrats have silently and relentlessly pushed forward ever since, and their agenda is now becoming increasingly visible.

At its heart, technocracy is an economic system, not a political one. It actually calls for, indeed demands, the total dismantling of the political system, which includes the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is the only thing that has kept technocracy at bay this long in the U.S.

The system also hinges on the skillful implementation of social engineering. Once fully implemented, people won’t have the ability to effectively fight it, but until then, through peaceful civil disobedience, the sharing of information and the exercise of political power, we still have a chance to prevent it.

Time is running short, however. As noted by The Burning Platform,11 “Since 9/11, the United States has unequivocally moved in the direction of Orwell’s 1984 vision,” and “We are now experiencing a dystopian amalgamation of the worst of both novels,” referring to “1984” and “Brave New World.”

Unfortunately, many still cannot see the full picture, nor understand the ultimate real-world danger of unquestioning compliance with ever-more illogical and freedom-quenching recommendations and mandates.

Technocracy Demands the Abolishment of Political Systems

Under technocratic rule, nations are to be led by unelected leaders who decide which resources companies can use to make certain products, and which products consumers are ultimately allowed to buy. Technocracy is essentially a resource-based economic system in which energy and social engineering run the economy rather than pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand.

Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we’re currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. I go into more details on technocracy in my interview with Patrick Wood.

His two books, “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation” and “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order” delve into this new world order in greater depth. You can listen to our interview below.

Download Interview Transcript

Science Has Been Misused for Decades

Importantly, science is a primary tool used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running under the technocratic system. As explained by Wood, technocracy uses science to issue suggestions, to start. But those suggestions rapidly turn into mandates, which is precisely what we’ve been seeing during this pandemic. We’ve also seen this with vaccines in general.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed there’s a much larger plan that includes implantable digital identifications, medical records and vaccine passports, digital currency and banking — all of which will ultimately be tied together so that algorithms and automation will be able to keep everyone in line, everywhere, all the time.

Rule by Algorithm

An important tool used to drive the technocratic agenda forward is what Huxley pointed out, namely efficiency. In the name of efficiency and convenience, we are being inundated with an ever-increasing amount of “smart” technology that tracks everything everyone says and does, and artificial intelligence that sorts, interprets and spits out recommendations based on all that data.

This technological infrastructure is crucial for the technocracy, as the ultimate goal is to essentially automate slavery. The idea is that society will be ruled by automated algorithms, thus rendering a political structure irrelevant. Everyone will be automatically kept in line by technology.

For example, you might be told via text message that it’s time to get your annual vaccination. You go there, get the shot, and receive a digital vaccine certificate. Should you get the bright idea to refuse, your bank accounts get automatically frozen, the electronic door pass to your office won’t work, and you won’t be allowed to pass through the electronic check point at the grocery store.

No human authority is required in that system. There won’t be anyone to complain to or debate with. You’re herded into compliance by the fact that you have to do certain things in order to be allowed to participate in society. It sounds crazy, but if you look around, you’ll see clear evidence that this system has been slowly implemented all around us, for decades.

And, when you look at the statements from people like Bill Gates, in conjunction with the technologies he and others are implementing in various parts of the world (such as digital identification, currency, vaccine certificates and medical records, along with implantable chips to track employee attendance, smart appliances and entire smart cities, just to name a few), you can begin to see how the control loop is closing in around us.

In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” professor Shoshana Zuboff exposes the stunning capacities currently available to surveil, analyze and manipulate our behavior. It’s crucial to realize that as bad as it is today, the predictive power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate, which means their ability to manipulate behavior is increasing at a pace we cannot fully comprehend.

Regaining Control of Local Government Is Key

Importantly, technocrats are currently making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece. What can we can do to thwart the steady march of technocracy?

As explained by Wood, the most effective way is through local activism. The technocratic system was built from the bottom up, so we cannot tear it down from the top down. They’re already far too powerful for that. So, to begin the dismantling process, we must regain control of our local governments, and work our way up from there.

One of the most important elected local officials that you should concern yourself with is your sheriff. Sheriffs are responsible for enforcing tyrannical edicts from local, state and federal government, and if they choose not to, government has no power. City councils also have a lot of power. They can pass binding resolutions to protect citizens against the technocratic agenda.

1 Person in 40 Is Injured by Vaccines

Getting back to the issue of the COVID-19 vaccine, I urge you to keep a cool head once the PR machine gains speed. Read through the propaganda messages again (above) and familiarize yourself with them so you can identify the buttons they’re trying to push.

Remember, the COVID-19 vaccines currently leading in development have never before been licensed for human use, and there’s no possible way to ascertain what the long-term ramifications might be when you turn your body into a viral protein factory. I’ve discussed the theory behind mRNA vaccines in several previous articles, including “Gates Tries to Justify Side Effects of Fast-Tracked Vaccine.”

Coronavirus vaccine efforts gained speed in early 2002, following three SARS epidemics. However, such efforts have proven highly problematic as coronavirus vaccines have a stubborn tendency to trigger paradoxical immune responses.

In my interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who chairs the board of directors of the Children’s Health Defense,12 he reviewed some of the failed efforts to produce a viable coronavirus vaccine and highlighted the dangers of vaccine exaggeration of the immune response:

“The Chinese, the Americans, the Europeans all got together and said, ‘We need to develop a vaccine against coronavirus.’ Around 2012, they had about 30 vaccines that looked promising. They took the four best of those and … gave those vaccines to ferrets, which are the closest analogy when you’re looking at lung infections in human beings.

The ferrets had an extraordinarily good antibody response, and that is the metric by which FDA licenses vaccines … The ferrets developed very strong antibodies, so they thought, ‘We hit the jackpot.’ All four of these vaccines … worked like a charm.

Then something terrible happened. Those ferrets were then exposed to the wild virus, and they all died. [They developed] inflammation in all their organs, their lungs stopped functioning and they died.”

So please, review ALL the vaccine studies BEFORE you get the COVID vaccine because as far as I have read, this essential part of the study — ensuring that no paradoxical immune enhancement will occur — has not yet been done.

Even with conventionally manufactured vaccines, data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research Quality suggests vaccine damage occurs in 2.6% of all vaccinations. This means 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million, which is what we’ve been repeatedly told — is injured by vaccines. Kennedy Jr. reviewed this data in a recent online vaccine debate13 with attorney and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz.

The U.S. Vaccine Court has also paid out $4 billion to patients permanently damaged or killed by vaccines, and that’s just a small portion of all the cases filed. According to Kennedy, less than 1% of people who are injured ever get to court, due to the high bar set for proving causation.

Will the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be more dangerous than conventional vaccines, or will they be safer? Considering these vaccines are being fast-tracked and are forgoing all traditional animal testing and long-term evaluation, I suspect they may end up having far more unanticipated complications.

So, as the vaccine campaign rolls out, remember to weigh whatever potential risks and benefits that might apply in your particular situation, and avoid falling for emotional triggers.

Regardless of what you decide, also try to accept the personal decisions of others. The PR campaign will clearly try to manipulate you into fearing those who chose not to vaccinate, and trigger you into condemning them. Hopefully, knowing that you are being manipulated will help ease these tendencies.

Sources and References

The post Testing the Most Effective Method To Manipulate Minds appeared first on LewRockwell.


The Floridian Inquisition


I’m an attorney representing a professor at the University of Central Florida who is being subjected by the university to what can only be called an inquisition after expressing opinions on Twitter that led to widespread calls for his firing. UCF is a public institution—an instrument of the state—and is now bringing its full power to bear against a man who dared to question the prevailing orthodoxy that has quickly descended over so many of this country’s institutions. I cannot bear witness to what the university is doing to this man without speaking out against it. If we do not challenge this egregious abuse of power, things will only get worse.

Professor Charles Negy is a wonderfully eccentric man, someone who teaches extraordinarily controversial subjects—Cross-Cultural Psychology and Sexual Behavior—with bluntness and humor. He is exactly the kind of professor you want in college: someone who is passionate about his subject, who will challenge your deeply-held assumptions, and who encourages free and open discussion in the classroom. Negy’s bluntness has occasionally ruffled feathers over the years, but throughout his 22-year career at UCF he has received consistently superior performance reviews. For the past four years, for example, he has received an evaluation rating of “Outstanding” for his instruction and advising.

In June, however, things changed overnight for Negy after he posted a characteristically blunt tweet to his personal Twitter account:

Immediately, #UCFfirehim began trending on Twitter and people began to protest both on UCF’s campus and outside Negy’s home.

UCF president Alexander Cartwright understood, but was clearly disappointed, that the university could not fire Negy for his constitutionally protected tweets, telling the Orlando Sentinel: “The Constitution restricts our ability to fire him or any other University employee for expressing personal opinions about matters of public concern. This is the law.”

So Cartwright chose a different strategy: He publicly announced a witch hunt into Negy’s classroom speech. A June 4th message posted to UCF’s website from the president, provost, and chief diversity officer addressed the content of Negy’s tweets directly and then stated: “If any student, current or former, believes they may have experienced abusive or discriminatory behavior by any faculty or staff member, we want to know about it. UCF takes every report seriously. Concerns can be reported to UCF’s IntegrityLine, which also takes anonymous complaints.” (Emphasis added).

UCF’s clarion call worked. Since June 4th, a litany (we don’t know the exact number, because they won’t say) of complaints has been lodged against Negy for his classroom pedagogy, for speech that allegedly occurred over a 15-year period from 2005 to 2020. The university charged Negy with discriminatory harassment on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, sex, gender identity/expression, and disability—it is worth noting here that Negy himself is both an ethnic and sexual minority—while providing him with only a handful of “examples” of his alleged wrongdoing. Negy begged for more information prior to his investigative interview so that he might prepare to defend himself, but UCF refused.

Instead, last Friday the university subjected Negy to an “investigative interview” that was one of the most Kafkaesque things I have seen in my 15 years advising students and faculty about campus disciplinary matters. For four straight hours, UCF’s investigator grilled Negy about accusations stemming directly from his classroom pedagogy, having made no effort to weed out the countless accusations that were obviously just critiques of his choice of teaching material. UCF also made no effort to consolidate allegations, repeatedly asking Negy variations of the same question, ad infinitum. And again, virtually all of these questions related directly to Negy’s pedagogy, which deals with unavoidably controversial subjects. When Negy, physically and emotionally exhausted after four hours of interrogation, asked if the interview was almost over, we learned that the investigator had not even gotten halfway through her list of accusations. Since he could take no more, another five-hour inquisition was scheduled for the following week.

This investigation was obviously undertaken in retaliation for Negy’s protected tweets, and it is serving its purpose: How many professors are going to be willing to speak out if the result is a nine-hour inquisition followed by an almost inevitable punishment? How many professors will be willing to teach necessary but controversial material if they know they might be called upon, 15 years later, to defend every statement they made in the course of teaching that material?

The university has made it abundantly clear that it does not care about Professor Negy’s free speech and due process rights. This investigation is a means to an end—to get rid of a professor whose protected expressions of opinion have made him politically inconvenient. Cases like this are canaries in the coal mine: if a public university—a government agency—can treat someone this way for deviating from the university’s orthodoxy, and face no accountability for doing so, then what (and who) is next?

The answer, of course, is you and me. We are next. If decent people do not take a stand against these abuses, it’s not a matter of if the state-endorsed mob will come for us—it’s only a matter of when.


Samantha K. Harris, a campus disciplinary attorney, is representing Professor Negy in his investigation by UCF.

The post The Floridian Inquisition appeared first on Quillette.


Wednesday, August 12, 2020

New Study Finds Potential Reason Why COVID-19 Occurs Less In Children

New Study Finds Potential Reason Why COVID-19 Occurs Less In Children Tyler Durden Wed, 08/12/2020 - 06:00

Authored by Paula Liu via The Epoch Times,

The reason COVID-19 occurs less frequently in children could be due to the lack of a certain enzyme, researchers have found.

This new study detailed in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on May 20, discovered that the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which grows in abundance as the individual grows, might be the reason that less than two percent of all individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease - are children.

Researchers had suspected that COVID-19 susceptibility could be linked to the amount of gene expression of ACE2 seen in the nasal cavity, given that the enzyme acts as a receptor to allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus to pass into the body.

To investigate this potential link, researchers looked for a relationship between the two - the level of gene expression of ACE2 in the nose and COVID-19 infection - by taking nasal swabs from 305 people involved in an asthma study. Researchers hypothesized that the lower the levels of enzyme gene expression, the less likely it is a person will be infected by COVID-19.

Researchers said they chose to swab the nose because it is one of the first access points for SARS-CoV-2 to infect an individual.

Samples were taken from both asthmatic (49.8 percent) and non-asthmatic patients. The 305 people involved in the study were between four to 60 years of age.

Researchers said they found a clear association between ACE2 expression and age - opening up a possible explanation as to why most children, who tend to have lower levels of enzyme expression, are less susceptible to COVID-19.

Supinda Bunyavanich, professor of Genetics and Genomic Sciences and Paediatrics at Mount Sinai, said in a press release that the study found “that there are low levels of ACE2 expression in the nasal passages of younger children, and this ACE2 level increases with age into adulthood.

“This might explain why children have been largely spared in the pandemic,” Bunyavanich said.


‘This is a disease we are going to have to live with’, says Swedish expert


Having shunned a formal lockdown, Sweden continues to divide opinion over its management of the coronavirus crisis. Views differ to the extent that a few days ago the Telegraph simultaneously and schizophrenically published divergent reactions to the news that during the second quarter of 2020 Swedish GDP declined by 8.6 percent. 

‘Sweden suffers record plunge despite lighter lockdown’ was the uncomplimentary headline above a piece by Tom Rees. Evidently unconvinced by the Swedish strategy, the writer sceptically queried: “Whether trying to spare the economy was worth allowing the virus to rip through the country is a question Sweden is still trying to answer.

Leaving aside Rees’s wilful misrepresentation of the Swedes’ motivation, his appraisal of Sweden’s economic and public health performances is unnecessarily negative. Although the quarterly contraction due to coronavirus of 8.6 percent is indeed unprecedented for the country, Sweden’s economy has escaped relatively lightly: for EU states which have already reported for the second quarter, the average reduction to GDP has been 11.9 percent – above which were France, Italy and, worst of all, Spain, where the economy shrank by a massive 18.5 percent.

Which is why, contradicting the abject assessment of Sweden by Tom Rees, his Telegraph colleague Richard Orange legitimately presented the Swedes’ damage limitation as ‘growing evidence that the decision to avoid a full lockdown is paying economic dividends’. 

Certainly, the Scandinavians’ economy has not suffered from self-inflicted harm to the extent being experienced elsewhere in Europe, including the UK. Our Office for National Statistics will shortly report for the second quarter of 2020; however, we already know that during the three months to May 31 the government’s largely futile attempts to save lives, by confining the country to barracks, concomitantly caused GDP to fall by a devastating 19.1 percent.  

Nor is it remotely fair to suggest, as did Rees, that the Swedes sought to mitigate economic damage by ‘allowing the virus to rip through the country’. Undoubtedly there is an unfavourable comparison between Covid-related deaths in Sweden and the fatality rates of its Nordic neighbours; nonetheless, state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who commendably has held his nerve throughout the crisis and continues to dictate Sweden’s rational response, contends that his country’s demography and pockets of population density are more analogous to countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, by which measure Swedish mortality has been unexceptional.

One thing the Swedes have acknowledged, with a candour and humility conspicuously absent in Britain, is that they signally failed to protect many vulnerable occupants of the country’s long-term care facilities. That blunder helps explain why Sweden’s coronavirus deaths have overwhelmingly been elderly – the over-80s account for two-thirds of fatalities – but it is unrelated to the Swedes’ decision to eschew a full lockdown.

Furthermore, unlike much of Europe, it appears Sweden is now benefiting from having built up a greater collective immunity.

Sweden, which never had lockdown, sees COVID-19 cases plummet as rest of Europe suffers spike

— Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon) July 31, 2020

In neighbouring Norway, which in March shut schools and instantly battened down the hatches, the Prime Minister now admits: “I probably took many of the decisions out of fear.” Norway’s chief public health official concedes: “We could possibly have achieved the same effects and avoided some of the unfortunate impacts by not locking down, but by instead keeping open but with infection control measures.

In other words, Norway now wishes it had acted more like Sweden, which crucially kept its schools open and treated its citizens as grown-ups, allowing people responsibly to distance themselves and voluntarily limit their domestic travel. Even now, Sweden remains mask-free, because as the admirable Anders Tegnell observes: “The evidence base for using masks in society is still very weak . . . we haven’t seen any new evidence coming up, which is a little bit surprising I can say.

And unlike in the UK, where pointlessly meddlesome measures aimed at eliminating Covid-19 continue to restrict everyday activities, Tegnell contends that we must simply get on with life: “I don’t think this is a disease that we can eradicate . . . If you look at diseases like the flu and other respiratory viruses, we are not even close to eradicating them despite the fact we have a vaccine in place. I personally believe that this is a disease we are going to have to live with.”

Will we eradicate coronavirus completely?

Architect of Sweden's Covid response, Anders Tegnell, said we're going to have to learn to live with it in today's episode of #LockdownTV

Watch the full episode here ⬇

— UnHerd (@unherd) July 23, 2020

Scandinavian stoicism was also evident in remarks made last month by Lena Hallengren, Sweden’s Minister for Health and Social Affairs. Playing down how distinct her country has been, she noted: “Fundamentally, Sweden’s measures only differ from other countries in two regards: we are not shutting down schools for younger children or childcare facilities and we have no regulation that forces citizens to remain in their homes.” 

“Only differs in two regards,” she says, in a masterpiece of understatement. Put another way, Britain has differed from Sweden “only” in that Johnson, Sturgeon and Drakeford stopped educating their countries’ children and “only” in the way our governors arbitrarily abandoned liberty by indiscriminately interning their people.

This article has been republished with permission from Conservative Woman.

The post ‘This is a disease we are going to have to live with’, says Swedish expert appeared first on MercatorNet.


Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Does HIV exist? An explosive interview

Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background. My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.


Putin says country has approved coronavirus vaccine



(JUST THE NEWS) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday announced the approval of a coronavirus vaccine, making it the world's first vaccine available to treat the novel virus. There is, however, ongoing concern over the safety and efficacy of the Russian vaccine.

"A vaccine against coronavirus has been registered for the first time in the world this morning. I know that it works quite effectively, it forms a stable immunity," Putin said on state TV Aug. 11.

The vaccine, called Sputnik-V -- a reference to the 1957 surprise launch of the world's first satellite by the Soviet Union -- was developed by the Gamaleya Institute, based in Moscow.

Read the full story ›

The post Putin says country has approved coronavirus vaccine appeared first on WND.


The Narrative Pandemic



OK, I don’t like conspiracy theories and if people were always open and above-board in what they’re doing and told the truth, we would have enterprise facts instead of conspiracy theories.

As far as COVID-19, well, I want to give the establishment a plausible excuse, so maybe they did what they did because they just wanted to save us from ourselves. But – – –

In a previous article, “Truth, Conspiracy, or SNAFU —YOU Decide“, we established that, violating this science – – –

“…the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death — regardless of other factors. This violates a basic principle of infectiology: only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may [that] diagnosis be made. ” –thoroughly credentialed infectiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in his letter to German Prime Minister, Angela Merkel

- – – the CDC/WHO amalgam seriously exaggerated the number of deaths blamed on COVID-19 by the simple expedient of jiggering their own long-established reporting guidelines. Violating the above science, “it” told the entire world-wide medical establishment to illegitimatly list anyone dying as a COVID-19 death soley because assumed, presumed, probable, suspected or tested COVID-19 was present, resulting in these confessions – – –

The city [New York] has added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive. …The C.D.C., in its guidance to local governments, has recommended that cases of “assumed” coronavirus infection be noted on death certificates since before New York City recorded its first death on March 14. –N.Y.C. Death Toll Soars Past 10,000 in Revised Virus Count – The New York Times [emphasis added]

Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota physician and Republican state senator said he received a 7-page document coaching him to fill out death certificates with a COVID-19 diagnosis without a lab test to confirm the patient actually had the virus. –MN Senator and Dr. Reveals HHS Document Coached Him on How to Overcount COVID-19 Cases

… and from Trump-team star and “scarf lady” Dr. Deborah Birx – – –

“We’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality.”…”If someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death,” Birx said. –Dr. Birx Confirms Anyone Who Dies WITH Coronavirus, Regardless of Any Underlying Health Condition, is Being Counted as a COVID-19 Death

… and from Italy – – –

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.” –Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health,

And we have these estimates of how exaggerated the official jiggered COVID-19 death numbers are as a result – – –

More than 60% of fatalities of people suspected of having contracted Covid-19 [in Russia] are not classified as coronavirus deaths because they occurred ‘from clearly other causes“… “autopsies are performed in all suspected cases.–Bloomberg

Those “clearly other causes” are things like stroke, heart attack, etc. and are usually called “pre-morbidities” or “co-morbidities.

On re-evaluation by the [Italian] National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of [coronavirus] death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus” [Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health] says. –     

“Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower than it currently is.” [source] and a tip-o-the-hat to Jon Rappaport

In other words, CDC, for the first and only time in 17 years, broke with the ages-old scientific Koch infectiology tradition and, violating its own rules, told the entire world-wide medical establishment to illegitimatly list anyone dying with — not from — assumed, presumed, probable, etc. COVID-19 as a COVID-19 death. The result is an approximately 10x (10 times) exaggeration of the actual COVID-19 deaths.

Doctors Birx and Fauci — particularly Dr.Fauci having been in the infectious disease business for most of his career — simply cannot claim to be ignorant of this blatantly dishonest and over-the-top exaggeration. Why are they knowingly presiding over this grotesque scientific aberration instead of exposing it?

So it’s completely clear, it’s not the virus pandemic we have to worry about, it’s the Narrative Pandemic.

Still, while the statistical truism that “correlation does not imply causation” obviously applies, if COVID-19 isn’t responsible, why does it keep mysteriously showing up correlated with all these co-morbidities, cases and deaths?

The biggest and most obvious part of the answer is that the C.D.C.-W.H.O. guidelines specifically instructed the world-wide medical establishment to illegitimately create that correlation with incorrect and misleading record keeping and reporting. And in some cases, gave cash incentives for doing it.

In fact, as John Rappoport hypothesizes, there’s an outside possibility that the dangers of COVID-19 may be mostly a statistical artifact produced by the fake statistics connecting it to the real killers, the co-morbidities.

Why would the world-wide elitist establishment do that?

Well, to give them at least a limited-hang-out excuse, they might claim they were afraid “we” wouldn’t take their warnings seriously if they didn’t wildly exaggerate things.

On the other hand, there’s the suggestion that this was their answer — for those willing to kill hundreds of millions, mostly by starvation — to perceived over-population and CO˛ emissions.

And of course, there’s always SNAFU – – –

For perspective, what would happen if the world-wide health establishment had exactly followed those same illegitimate C.D.C./W.H.O. reporting guidelines for COVID-19 deaths but were told to apply them to anyone dying WITH the common cold instead?

Just as the fake numbers tell us we’re having a COVID-19 pandemic, the fake numbers would tell us we’re having a Common Cold pandemic instead.

And the narrative would look something like this – – –

Trump-team star Birx would say, …”If someone dies with the common cold, we are counting that as a common cold death.

Prof. Ricciardi would say, “…all the people who die in hospitals with the common cold are deemed to be dying of the common cold.

And Dr. Jensen — and a bunch of other doctors — would recognize that something is seriously wrong pointing out “a common cold” diagnosis instead of a COVID-19 diagnosis in that 7-page document.

Suddenly the number of folks with “Common Cold” on their death certificates begins to balloon and is reported — except approximately 90% of them are dying from “clearly other causes,” those “pre-morbidities” or “co-morbidities,” remember.

Folks would say, “Look at all the people dying WITH the common cold. That must be what’s killing them.” And, “What do you mean the common cold isn’t that serious, people are dying!” And they’d say, “What do you mean it isn’t the cold that’s killing them — just look at the statistics!! They all have colds!!

And just as with COVID-19, there would be all sorts of serious diseases and their serious symptoms correlated with the common cold meme by the dishonest record keeping: Pneumonia, heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, etc., but those aren’t from the cold or COVID-19, present or not. They’re the co-morbidities that are doing the killing.

Except maybe folks wouldn’t believe you because most folks have actually had common colds. So maybe you add “novel” to “common cold virus” and hype the heck out of that meme.

You could substitute any common malady for “common cold,” and, using the same dishonest CDC/WHO reporting ploy, you’d get a “pandemic” as the result.

Yes, it’s THAT simple. AND that stupid.

So the New York Times article would read, “The C.D.C., in its guidance to local governments, has recommended ‘that cases of ‘assumed’ common cold infection be noted on death certificates since before New York City recorded its first death on March 14,” and we’d be off to the Common Cold Pandemic races instead of the COVID-19 Pandemic races — complete with masks, social distancing, lock-downs and economy destruction!


There is one other intriguing possibility in the form of two “co-morbidities” that are rarely recognized and almost never mentioned because it’s more convenient — and “politick” — to blame them on COVID-19.

The first is “politician.” No, I’m not kidding.

Keep in mind that approximately half of all world-wide deaths blamed on COVID-19 happened in extended care facilities.

What’s that have to do with “politician” as a co-morbidity?

See, New York governor Cuomo insisted on putting known COVID-19 patients in personal care-homes amongst the vulnerable elderly. Like this:

[New York] Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo continued to defend his decision to place recovering COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, even though it brought him some “political heat,” he admitted on Sunday. Cuomo defends decision to put COVID-19 patients in nursing homes | Newsday

New Jersey governor Phil Murphy emulated Cuomo and Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf did the same, leading to this question at one of Wolf’s media events:

~”70% of COVID-19 fatalities in Pennsylvania are from nursing homes and personal care homes. What are your plans to deal with this?” –question to Rachel Levine, PA Sec. of Health, Chanel 4 news, Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:24 PM,.

The same really stupid policy — unless it was intended to get rid of a lot of older folks who were draining government coffers — was encouraged by a Ł1,000 bounty in the UK and has been laid at BoJo’s (Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s) feet – – -

UK Council gave care homes Ł1000 as ‘cash incentive’ to take in Covid patients.

Hence “Politician” as a co-morbidity. Does this help explain the care-home death toll in the rest of the world too?

The second rarely mentioned co-morbidity is “hospital.

You enter a hospital with one malady but die from an in-hospital screw-up of some sort or a disease you get while there instead. That’s called iatrogenic death. If it doesn’t kill you, it’s an iatrogenic illness.

Even before this COVID-19 fiasco, hospital” was the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

In an article the FTC coerced him into taking down — Dr. David Brownstein, MD explained that “Hospitals receive …up to $13,000 from the Government for an admission diagnosis of COVID,” and “if the patient is ventilated, they receive up to $39,000.

I can guarantee you that hospital administrators are running around telling every physician and resident physician to diagnosis COVID at the first cough or sneeze,” Dr. Brownstein suggests.

So, besides possibly treating folks for COVID-19 instead of for the co-morbidities they were there for, in addition — maybe to get the bounty — did they also hospitalize some who, fearing for their lives because of the narrative, wouldn’t have otherwise been hospitalized? If so, this would needlessly expose them to “hospital.”

Were there additional COVID-19-fiasco-related hospital screw-ups and deaths?

Here’s a clue – – –

~”If you were ventilated at the beginning of the pandemic, you had an 80 or 90 percent chance of dying, now you have an 80% chance of recovering.” –Dr. William Haseltine, President, Access Health International, Author “A Family Guide to Covid,” Bloomberg, Tuesday, June 16, 2020 2:50 PM

Accepting Dr. Haseltine’s numbers and doing the math, at the beginning of the “pandemic,” at least eight of ten ventilated patients died when, by best practices later on, only two of ten died. That means that six of ten early-on ventilated patients didn’t die of COVID-19 — or whatever — they died because they were ventilated and/or incorrectly ventilated, classic cases of iatrogenic death.

How many death certificates do you suppose actually reported it that way?

And how many folks were put on ventilators, partially at least to collect that $39,000? Does that implicate “politician” as a co-morbibity again?

Further, instead of ventilation, “best practices” in large numbers of patients was actually a practice called proning, much safer with better outcomes than ventilating but without the $39,000 and so far practiced in only a few hospitals.

Factoring that oversight into the death figures would obviously increase the iatrogenic — and overall — “hospital” (as opposed to COVID-19) co-morbidity death toll. Maybe someone will eventually do the research and math to get a solid figure.

Were there still other political and medical system screw-ups that ended up with COVID-19 on the death certificate instead?

Three whistle-blowing nurses verify over-ventilation — and bring a few other troubling modern hospital issues to light here: Misconduct in NY hospitals–three nurses speak out!

Most troubling is the apparent consensus among those nurses that when you go into a hospital, “pandemic” or not, you should take an “advocate” with you.

So care-home deaths due to politicians housing COVID-19 patients in them, unnecessary bounty-driven hospitalizations that ended in death, ventialting patients rather than proning them and ventilating patients outside of later-discovered best practices added to all those other co-morbidities reflexively blamed on the virus would all reduce the approximately 10% of deaths more honestly blamed on COVID-19 and not explained by the other more main-stream co-morbidities. How much of that 10% do they explain?

So, hard as it is for some to believe, the take-away is that about 90% of the official deaths blamed on COVID-19 — probably more — are fake news, and so is the so-called “pandemic.

It is in fact, a pandemic created by fake numbers and narrative, not by a virus — so we might want to call it a “Narrative-created Pandemic” — and keep a wary eye out for any nefarious follow-ups.

HERE For updates, additions, comments, and corrections.

AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!

The post The Narrative Pandemic appeared first on LewRockwell.