How would we view the pandemic if this were 1990?
Would there be so much discussion and debate about what was really going on? The internet has given unprecedented power to propagandists, but at the same time it has become an incredible resource to free thinkers and those who question things.
Without the ‘benefit’ of social media and high speed internet, this might have been like living through the first gulf war: with no idea what to think or how to find out, most of us would have taken the BBC at face value. How far we have come since then, how far…
I don’t think this situation could have happened at all without the internet. The mind control techniques being used to egg up and prolong the situation have been mastered for at least half a century. But to roll out a global plan this way and impose changes before people could react and debate, could not have happened so thoroughly by newspapers and TV alone.
Marshall Smith called the 1918 Spanish Flu a pandemic ‘transmitted by telephone’. Interesting concept, once you get it. The energy medicine people would say this is all about disruption to the earth’s electric fields via radio equipment, and that each pandemic coincides with new Radio Frequency technology. And RF technology affects our physiology, causing cell death and lysis. All of that is moot, but where I agree 100% is that viruses are the result of the process not the cause.
I say it is much simpler: pandemics are in the head.
Viral epidemics are a psychological phenomenon, made real through our efforts to stop them. Person to person spread of viral illness has defied confirmation by experiment. There is no correlation between outbreaks and either population density or social proximity. Honestly! Antisocial distancing is all the more humiliating for its pointlessness.
Where people do nothing, there is no particular outbreak, unless there is air pollution or sudden change in the weather. Those are the two things that seem to cause actual clusters. In our area people seem to complain of a ‘virus going around’ whenever the council are out spraying the verges.
When people believe there is an outbreak, certain things happen to their physiology. But the real trouble begins when medical services start overreacting and treating every illness as if it were a death sentence.
The combination of mild illness with fear and overzealous medical treatment can be really dangerous. In 1918, many millions of deaths may have been caused by aspirin, since its usage was rolled out in insane dosages just before the October death spike. The death toll in the non-medical hospitals (where they weren’t drugging people) was close to zero.
This is the basis of the mass hysteria we are seeing now. But it gets worse.
Viral tests are potentially very misleading: they signify all kinds of inflammation and stress processes in the body. I’ve explained many times why you don’t need a virus to account for what has been happening in the world. All you need to do to is spread news of a virus, and let panic do the rest. The association with radio waves is simply a matter of better communications leading to more efficient spread of the psychological memes. Every advance in radio technology is an advance in the communication of ideas.
In addition, the presence of a novel virus has not been proven satisfactorily, as many others have explained better than I can, so I won’t labour it here. Suffice to say, don’t confuse a lot of impressive technobabble with actual proof of anything. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a new virus, but the scientific evidence for its existence is poor, and we have other explanations for what has been happening. The default assumption ought therefore to be that we don’t have a virus.
It’s a bit like the existence of Santa Claus: no proof either way, does not make it 50:50.
Remember that the placebo effect works both ways.
Fear trashes the immune system, and if people fear getting sick with a deadly disease, they can get sick as a result. And the faster and more powerfully you can tell everybody they are sick, the faster something spreads. The converse is also true.
We have to break this idea there is any kind of actual virus going around. Or, for those who remain convinced that there is a virus, we have to break the idea that it is so deadly and virulent, since even the official data do not support that.
Importantly, the official use of the term ‘cases’ has come to represent virtual cases. These are positive results from the dubious tests – numbers on a spreadsheet – not people struggling to breathe. There is no certainty of excess overall mortality anywhere.
The UK government’s own website has said since March 2020 that this is NOT considered a High Consequence Infectious Disease. Who knew?
Back at the start of the year, ‘leaked’ videos from Asia showed young healthy people collapsing in the street or vomiting blood. Clearly this is not the reality that has come to pass, and one has to wonder if those videos were staged or set up in some way, or taken from some unrelated situation. Yet the fear this generated seems to have stuck in peoples minds, and become the basis for their behaviour. The crisis has turned out to be nothing like those images, and is mostly man-made. A report by South African actuaries estimated that the crisis response would kill 29 times as many people as the crisis itself.
And yet, strangely, many people seem uncomfortable with the idea that their governments might have overreacted (those same governments who get everything right and never lie, of course).
But if fear and mayhem can spread faster than ever before, then potentially so can calm, truth and good sense. The more efficiently we can spread the word there is NOTHING TO FEAR in this virus or ANY virus, the sooner we will regain control of our destiny.
~