Tactics of the Propagandists: Part 3

Change in COVID Cases is Only Due to the Degree of Suppression

There are a number of reasons for COVID cases to trend up or down. One of them is the amount of human interaction. Other reasons include: seasonal pattern of respiratory infections, number of people tested, the number of cycles (sensitivity) of PCR tests, and herd immunity approaching. Propagandists have always stated that only the level of human interaction (and now mask-wearing) affects the number of COVID cases. They have always downplayed the other factors.

In the winter of 2020-2021, there was a rise, followed by a decrease in COVID cases. Of course, politicians have told us that the rise was due to increased social interaction and the decrease was due to decreased social interaction and increased mask-wearing. The main way we know this not to be the case is by comparing graphs of COVID cases in places with restrictions to those without restrictions (or even voluntary distancing/masking commonly practiced). Low and behold, the places with the least amount of social distancing and masking actually have lower COVID rates. Moreover, the introduction of a lockdown or mask mandate seems to have no effect on the trajectory of COVID cases. The persistent claim that COVID rates go up or down almost exclusively based on the degree of suppression is clearly a lie.

No one can argue against facts, right? Facts are facts. They can’t be disputed because they are based on objective observations. That’s what the corrupt elite want you to think. Lockdown propagandists have had much of their success in getting people to believe in their lies by packaging them as facts. 

Lockdown propaganda is riddled with statements of ‘fact’ for what are actually highly contestable theories. This tactic is used so blatantly, in fact, that it often gives them away. For instance, some lockdown propagandists are brazen to the point of denying that pandemic restrictions have caused any economic damage, stating that all of it was “caused by the virus.” Ditto, healthcare. You have to be awfully naive to believe thost statements. Clearly, people have been put out of work because of stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and mandated closure or restrictions on numerous industries. It is also common knowledge that use of healthcare facilities has plummeted since the outbreak, rather than having been diverted to treat a flood of COVID patients. 

Packaging lies and half-truths as pandemic facts has also come in much more insidious forms. Having COVID is one. The government and media exclaim daily: “This is the number of new COVID cases in the state today.” or “This is the number of people who died from COVID-19 today.” COVID cases and deaths are ‘facts’ according to these public figures. All of the pro-restrictions arguments are based on these supposed facts. In reality, the number of COVID cases and COVID deaths are far too contested to be considered facts. 

The tests used to determine a “case” of COVID are deeply flawed. They produce false positive results in the order of 90% according to many (shunned-by-the-media) experts. Even when a person’s body is actually ‘infected’ with SARS-CoV-2, if no symptoms are present, the person by definition does not have the illness of COVID-19. COVID deaths are also more fraud than fact. Anyone who dies for any reason within a month after a positive PCR test officially died from COVID. Clearly the criteria for COVID deaths is designed to be fraudulent. Statistics also expose the fraudulence of COVID deaths. For instance, in Canada, deaths from COVID in 2020 approximately equal the number of deaths that were mysteriously missing from heart disease, cancer, and all other causes. The Canadian government appears to be randomly stamping deaths certificates with COVID-19 for political reasons.

There are many other highly contested COVID-related theories that we are told are “facts” by the media. To name just one more, take the degree to which SARS-CoV-2 is spreading among asymptomatic carriers. Lockdown-advancing organizations like the CDC claim that most transmission is by healthy people yet many experts claim there is little asymptomatic transmission. You can judge for yourself who has the better case, but for a contested theory, the preponderance of asymptomatic transmission cannot be called fact.

Don’t take for granted anything you are told are ‘facts.’ Examine the evidence and determine the strength of each theory for yourself. Don’t assume that the media or government are acting in good faith.

Lockdown propagandists have villainized individual human rights and framed them as being against the public interest, even against “collective rights.” The concept of collective rights is rather thorny. As a legal term, it usually refers to rights of a minority, especially an Indigeonous people, to certain privileges not belonging to the general population. For instance, someone belonging to an Aboriginal tribe may have the right to live on a designated Reservation, but anyone who doesn’t belong to the tribe is not allowed to live there. 

When citizens speak of collective rights, particularly in regards to superseding individual rights, they are usually referring to collective interest. They may opine that the individual right to own property should be supplanted by the public need to annex a residence in order to build a new public road, for instance. Proponents of pandemic restrictions try to avoid discussion of rights, but when they do address them, they paint restrictions as promoting collective rights. They are of course not referring to the legal concept of ‘collective rights,’ but to collective interest. 

This is not a valid argument because the restrictions violate both individual rights and the collective interest. Moreover, collective rights enshrined in constitutional and other legal documents do not infringe upon fundamental individual rights, they simply offer certain groups exclusive privileges. To give another example, in many countries, the elderly have a collective right to income and medical assistance not available to younger citizens. Nevertheless, seniors certainly do not infringe upon the rights of non-seniors by collecting these extra benefits. 

In regards to the limitation of residency of a defined geographic area to people of specified native heritage, there does appear to be somewhat of a compromise of rights. Most constitutions state that citizens have freedom of movement and residency within the country. However, preventing residency of the general population in a tiny fraction of a country’s land does not interfere with a basic human need and therefore does not violate a basic human right. The general public is also not allowed to reside on a military base, for instance. In contrast, pandemic restrictions severely affect basic needs and sharply violate constitutionally-embedded rights. They do not further “collective rights,” they collectively destroy everyone’s rights.

There has understandably been much talk of projected cases and deaths from COVID since the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak started. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London famously predicted in early 2020 that Britain and the United States could see up to half a million and 2.2 million deaths from the virus within a year, respectively. Ferguson’s modelling was used as justification for lockdowns around the world. Now in early 2021, we can see that both the projections and the protective role of social distancing were way off base. That anyone ever listened to Ferguson’s fatal COVID projections is a mystery considering his history of spectacular failures. In 2005, for instance, Ferguson predicted up to 150 million deaths from bird flu. There were 282 bird flu deaths between 2003 and 2009 in the entire world.

Regardless of all the flak that Imperial College’s COVID death predictions have received, they did some good. It motivated world leaders to invest heavily in vaccine development at the outset of coronavirus. Moreover, these high-end predictions showed that SARS-CoV-2 did not have the ability to justify social distancing laws. The expected loss of inevitable loss of life from lockdowns is hundreds of times higher than from COVID-19 in Imperial College’s worst case scenario. The predictions, therefore, should have been used as justification to preserve civil liberties, rather than to eradicate them. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. 

Since the Imperial College London death estimates in March 2020, there have been countless other predictions telling us how many cases and deaths to expect from COVID if we don’t ‘lock down hard.’ Most of them have not predicted as many deaths as Ferguson, but they still scare people because they are portrayed in a scary fashion. The government of Germany was found to have hired scientists to deliberately create a faulty model showing a huge amount of deaths from COVID to justify a lockdown. Journalists and politicians show us through signalling panic that the latest prediction is super scary in order to incite fear among the public and motivate us to obey the orders and recommendations. Ferguson’s high estimate of COVID deaths amounts to under 1% of the population in Britain and the U.S. Social distancing, on the other hand, could easily kill the majority of people subject to them. 

Lonesomeness, low income, unemployment, lack of higher education, stress, and depression are all highly correlated with life expectancy. Not to mention the near-term direct deaths we are already seeing from social distancing in the form of increased dementia deaths, suicide, drug overdosing, and of course, lack of healthcare. No news media group or government has published estimates on the death toll from these. Nevertheless, the public doesn’t think about deaths from restrictions, nor do they recognize what an insignificant portion COVID constitutes of total deaths. They are all too easily cajoled into following pandemic restrictions upon hearing *any* projected cases or deaths from COVID. 

2020 has seen a grotesque development in the social media industry. Who would have guessed in 2019 that almost all of the major social media platforms would soon be deleting any account that exposed crimes against humanity or disseminated critical health information? Social media used to be revered for enabling social justice movements, such as the Arab Spring. Now we know their true colors. For some sick reason, they want to encourage collective incarceration and torture as much as they can. 

Facebook is so depraved, they refuse to let Lockdown Resistance or Oxford University’s Collateral Global have an account, preventing us from raising awareness on health issues. They remove any account that educates the public on the health effects of lockdowns, in fact. Upload a video on Youtube explaining the harms of social distancing and it will be taken down almost instantly. The only major social media platform that doesn’t have a policy to remove any post or account revealing the truth about lockdowns is Twitter. Twitter certainly does ban accounts that criticize COVID restrictions, but far less than do the other major platforms. Although, at the end of 2021, Twitter removed millions of accounts simply for expressing conservative views, including accounts which discussed anti-lockdown views. Parler, Gab, and Telegram are much more activist-friendly.

Google censors search results to only show websites that express aggressive pro-lockdown views. The other search engines don’t appear to do much censoring against anti-lockdown websites, but Google, which has 88% of the search engine market, is in an anti-democratic class of its own. It is almost impossible to find any webpage through Google that criticizes lockdowns, including popular articles in major newspapers. In fact, the platform clearly accentuates the most severe pro-lockdown articles. In late February 2021, Microsoft announced a coalition to take online censorship of information related to COVID to another level, called the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). 

Google and social media platforms are waging a war against democracy. They try their utmost to prevent people from learning about the impact of social distancing and forming educated opinions. They never censor the lockdown propagandists — they have free rein to spread lies about the COVID response and defame human rights activists. Besides hiding vital information, this censorship creates a ‘fake world’ in which people falsely assume that everyone is for the restrictions. Social proof is extremely powerful. People will be heavily inclined towards a view that they would never take independently if the proportion of others who appear to hold the view is high enough.

An MIT scientist with a doctorate in biological engineering (interesting fact: he is the inventor of email), Shiva Ayyadurai, has revealed that the United States government tells Twitter who to censor. He is currently in a court case with Twitter. If the government tells one social media outlet who/what to censor, it probably tells all of them. (‘Dr. Shiva,’ as he is known, is an expert on the immune system and has a fantastic website.)

The entire global lockdown scam is premised upon false diagnoses of COVID. PCR tests have been the gold standard test for SARS-CoV-2 infections. This should be outrageous because these tests do not work, plain and simple. Positive tests results are wrong in the order of 90-97% of the time, according to many of the world’s leading scientists. The CDC and WHO have each issued memos to the medical community explaining as much. Doctors don’t choose to have their patients tested with these pseudo-tests. They are ordered by government mandate. If it is widely known that these tests are extremely inaccurate, why are they used? If you can come up with a viable answer other than “It is an outright scam,” I’ll give you a million dollars. 

Our governments cannot claim that they have any idea of how many people have COVID-19 because there is no accurate test. So they invented a scam that would allow them to claim millions of non-infected people had COVID. It doesn’t end there. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not have symptoms about half the time. Thus, by definition, they do not have COVID-19, which is an illness. It is false to claim that everyone with a SARS-CoV-2 infection ‘has COVID’ or is a ‘COVID case.’ Both those terms signify that an illness is present. 

To top it off, deaths are listed as being from COVID-19 if someone dies for any reason whatsoever within a month after a positive PCR test. That’s the law! Coroners are forced by law to list deaths as COVID even if it is obvious that they are not. One peer-reviewed paper found that the CDC’s official COVID-19 death toll was 16 times higher than in reality. The paper mentioned that the CDC broke multiple laws to accomplish the inflated stats. 

A death certificate audit by two legislators in Minnesota found that in approximately 40% of the official “COVID-19” deaths in the state, the respiratory illness had clearly played no part in the death. They mentioned that deaths in Minnesota from homicide and vehicle accidents were being labelled as COVID deaths and called for a national audit. A New Mexico analysis has found that 5 out of every 6 COVID deaths in the state in 2020 had nothing to do with COVID.

In Canada, official stats show that there were about 10,000 deaths from all causes mysteriously missing in 2020 while the COVID death toll was 9,000. It looks like the government of Canada has been simply stamping death certificates with COVID even though COVID was not the cause of death. Approximately 80% of alleged COVID deaths in Canada have occurred in nursing homes. Much has been made of “outbreaks” of COVID-19 in Canadian nursing homes, but many of the outbreaks have been exposed as frauds. For instance, a report by the Canadian military discovered that, in one Ontario nursing home with a “COVID outbreak”, 26 residents died from dehydration due to lack of care. Needless to say, all of those 26 deaths were labelled as COVID.

In the UK, many families are demanding an inquiry after a relative’s death was officially labelled ‘COVID-19’ when they know it was from another cause. Iain Davis has written a compelling case that COVID deaths in Britain have been inflated tenfold. 

In the United States, there is a large financial incentive to classify hospital admissions as a SARS-CoV-2 infection. They receive $13,000 extra for COVID admissions and $39,000 more if they manage to shove a ventilator down their throats. Private hospitals in the U.S. have been struggling to stay in business due to the massive drop in patients from lockdowns, so they may need to make false COVID diagnoses just to avoid bankruptcy. An analysis of VAERS (American vaccine reporting system) reports by a group of British researchers found that all 250 of the reports investigated were labelled as COVID-19 deaths when only 4% of the individuals had COVID, suggesting that vaccine deaths are being labelled as COVID deaths.

The flu and other respiratory conditions are consistently diagnosed as COVID. Actually, the flu ‘disappeared’ in 2020 — almost no cases have been reported since the COVID scam began. Clearly, it is now labelled as COVID for political reasons (see below). Respiratory conditions are responsible for 6 million deaths per year and there was never any movement to shut down the world because of them. You can bet that a large portion of these respiratory deaths are now renamed “COVID-19” (see below).

How many people have or had COVID-19? No one knows. So to terrorize society, governments have conspired to use a worthless diagnostic tool and falsify death records to make it appear that many people are becoming ill and dying from COVID-19 everyday. They needed something that sounded concrete and scientific to justify enslaving society.

Since early 2020, people higher than us on the food chain have been telling us that we don’t matter and we must accept them as our masters. Politicians have claimed for themselves a level of authority historically matched only by dictators who claimed to be divine, such as the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt. They tell us that they have rightful rule over our very existence. Slavery, in the form of controlling our movement, ability to work, interaction with others, home incarceration, and face-covering has been imposed upon everyone under the ruse of public health. Why would anyone put their faith in politicians, anyhow? People succeed in politics because they are cutthroat and power hungry. Politicians are far from a wise and noble bunch. 

In early 2021, there is ample evidence that these measures have destroyed public health, but what if they did have a public health benefit? You could kill one person and harvest her organs to save five people. Does that make it okay? Our governments could enforce a strict diet and exercise regime upon everyone, increasing life expectancy well into the 90s. But that wouldn’t be right because it is taking control over people’s lives. 

What if a drug was invented that made you feel happy all the time with no side effects and the government forced everyone to take it? Everyone would be happy, after all. However, forced drug use violates personal freedom. It is thus unconditionally immoral. There is never any excuse to violate innocent people’s freedoms. The role of government is simply to provide public services like road construction and unemployment benefits. No politician or public health official has any moral authority to enslave you. The freedom of you and your family are non-negotiable. 

Now, let’s look at the authority of the ‘experts.’ We are told that governments’ newly claimed authority over our very existence is based on science and expertise. Again, freedom is non-negotiable. We shouldn’t listen to anyone trying to take away our fundamental rights, not even a Nobel-winning scientist. Like politicians, experts have no moral authority. They are useful for providing information but that in no way gives them any kind of authority to tell people what to do or decide what is best for anyone. No one, not even a politician or expert, has the ability to know what is best for you. The knowledge of what is best for each person is only found within that person.

The sole function of experts in public discourse is to provide information in their field of expertise so that people can make informed decisions for themselves on an individual basis. In the coronavirus pandemic, however, many of the most cited experts which promote lockdowns lack related expertise. Physicist Yaneer Bar-Yam is another early-in lockdown enthusiast. Bar-Yam has no background in health or epidemiology. Many public health officials also lack qualifying credentials. Britain’s Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, for one, is an economist with no health background.

Britain’s heinous COVID strategy has in large part been driven by entrepreneur Tomas Pueyo. Pueyo has an education in engineering and business, yet his articles and interviews about the importance of brutal repression to contain COVID have gone viral in the UK. The media, nevertheless, has taken to referring to him as an “expert” in the COVID response debate. While he is not an expert in the health sciences, Pueyo’s expertise in propaganda cannot be contested. Speaking of his viral articles at a ZeroCovid conference, he stated “I have experience in virals, in communication, in products that people like and share. So I designed them for that purpose. I put a narrative structure, and some tips to make them spread virally, and it succeeded.”

Chinese-American Eric Feigl-Ding, a professor in Harvard’s nutrition department, has been one of the loudest voices crying for a lockdown in America since January 2020. He has always stated that SARS-CoV-2 is super deadly, although he has little experience with infectious disease. Ding is a tireless advocate for the harshest possible lockdowns, including closed schools, until the virus has been completely eradicated. Ironically, his own wife and children moved from the U.S. to Austria in 2020 so their children could attend school in person.

An opinion from a highly qualified expert commenting within her field of expertise sounds pretty legit, doesn’t it? Surely, that would be a true case of expertise in action? That depends on a number of factors. For one, there is plain old corruption or conflict of interest. Many of the loudest, earliest voices for lockdowns in Western countries show conspicuous praise for China or have a working relationship with Chinese officials. For instance, Xi Jinping visited Imperial College London in 2015, the university that brought the world the infamous predictions of millions of deaths from COVID with recommendations of a global lockdown. China funds — openly and covertly — billions of dollars of research at universities around the world. For thousands of academics receiving Chinese funding, not to mention those who desire it, it is critical to make China look good at every opportunity.

It is important to recognize that experts and politicians are human beings and as such, have many weaknesses. They are susceptible to the same propaganda techniques mentioned here. They have cognitive biases like everyone else. They can be influenced by peer pressure and fear of retribution for going against the pro-lockdown narrative. In short, there is a difference between an opinion from an expert and an opinion from expertise. Many doctors and health experts advocate for lockdowns, not because they have rigorously analyzed them and found them to be the best option, but because they have themselves succumbed to the propaganda. Like most people these days, they are acting out of emotion, not logic. Do not underestimate the power of Xi Jinping’s lockdown cult.

The media have created the illusion of a consensus among scientists and doctors that lockdowns benefit public health. As is typical with journalists today, they simply lie and state there is a consensus when there may not even be a majority. The Great Barrington Declaration has tens of thousands of signatures from doctors and health experts who oppose lockdowns on health grounds. There have been other open letters, each signed by dozens or hundreds of doctors in various countries demanding that government end lockdowns. 

Why does it matter if experts support lockdowns? The role of experts is to provide unbiased information, not to make life decisions for others. If every doctor and epidemiologist in the world supported lockdowns, it wouldn’t make lockdowns any less evil. Social distancing laws are cruel, violate basic human rights, enslave society, and cause enormous suffering and early death. They are the definition of evil. Having a health-related doctorate is an indication of a high level of knowledge about health and human biology. It does not give anyone authority over life itself. No one has the right to take away your freedom for any reason, no matter how many elites condone it. The public deserves much of the blame for putting their lives into the hands of men and women devoid of wisdom.

The media only portray the pro-lockdown side of the debate. They have kept to this rule so strictly that it really does appear to the public that there are no experts that oppose lockdowns. But it is an illusion. Journalists learn of the experts’ opinions beforehand and only interview ones who espouse the aggressive anti-rights view of their news (propaganda) agency. 

The conversation among people on a radio or TV program also creates the illusion of a consensus. Media heads are puppets that say what their producers tell them to say, not what they personally think. They express the emotions their producers tell them to express, not their real emotions. There are many ads in all forms of media: TV commercials, bus shelter ads, etc., that promote social distancing. However, there is no advertising that promotes human rights or educates the public on the harms of lockdowns. This is due to a lack of funding in the anti-lockdown movement and the unwillingness of advertisers to allow for such ads. The fact that 100% of pandemic-related ads promote lockdowns makes it appear that everyone shares that view. The media portrays a fake world in which they are the sages out to save a world gone mad and there is a consensus supporting social distancing.