So… how do you even write about COVID or the pandemic anymore?
Especially at this point in time, when every possible angle or position has already been put forward somewhere – including every possible conspiracy theory or mainstream counter-narrative. That’s why, since this site came back from censorship purgatory and went live a few weeks ago, I’ve shied away from going too deep into the pandemic.
But I feel like I shouldn’t avoid it any longer.
A lot more has happened, and a lot more information has emerged, since I put up the long PDF a year or so ago: though, broadly speaking, I still hold to the conclusions I came to back then about the origins of the pandemic – particularly in how they relate to Gates, GAVI and ‘ID2020‘, and also how it’s possible that the virus originated from joint Chinese/American research into coronaviruses and may even have leaked out from both the Wuhan Biological Lab and Fort Detrick in Maryland.
Again, I won’t go over all of those details or references/sources again here: the PDF can be read here for anyone interested.
But now, over a year later, where are we? Well, there certainly is a giant elephant in the room right now – and it’s been there since the very start of the pandemic and the lockdowns. And we’ll get to it.
Certainly, there’s been an abundance of conspiracy theories from the start: which is not surprising, as we live in the age of conspiracy theories. But conspiracy theories – and the underlying mistrust that sustains them – exist for a reason: and at least some of that reason is based in precedent and past experience.
Are some of the conspiracy theories on COVID a lot of paranoid nonsense? Yes, probably. Probably a lot of them, actually.
But people who dismiss – or even demonise – anyone who casts doubt on the pandemic narrative are displaying a troubling lack of interest in pursuing the truth: and not just the truth about some minor false-flag terror attack this time or some run-of-the-mill assassination plot, but about a crisis that has ensnared virtually the whole planet, had an enormous – and at this point, incalculable – impact on our societies and on our personal lives, and which doesn’t yet have a clear conclusion in sight.
The fact that we’re talking about a potentially world-changing or civilisation-changing crisis – with all kinds of implications for our future; some of them discernible and some of them as-yet-unclear – makes it all the more odd to me that so many people choose to demonise or dismiss pertinent questions about the origins of this crisis, the direction things are moving in, or even the cause or nature of the deaths of so many peoples’ loved ones and significant others.
While there’s certainly a virulent swathe of unintelligent, raving, armchair ‘conspiracy theorists’ out there, pumping all kinds of unnecessary and unhelpful nonsense into the atmosphere, there also now seems to be a widespread school of thought that ANY and ALL voices of inquiry, scepticism or dissent are somehow the Bad Guys in this equation… with the implication being that they should just shut up, accept the mainstream consensus narrative and, essentially, obey the government in all things.
While both of those extremes are problematic, the implication seems to be that it is now villainous behaviour to engage in critical inquiry or to ask important questions, at least in regard to this pandemic. And that even something as basic as simply holding governments to account for certain actions or policies is somehow ‘unhelpful’ or counter-productive (at best) or even reprehensible (at worst).
The further implication then is that it is irresponsible to ask questions about vaccines (regardless of all the reasons – some of which will be laid out below – for doing so) that are being injected into our bodies or our loved ones’ bodies. That it is irresponsible to cast doubt on official narratives or to ask uncomfortable questions. And that it is both irresponsible and *appalling* to ask questions about peoples’ deaths: such as how they died or how their care was handled.
By implication, the “Shut up, my friend had COVID” school of thinkers are saying that NO ONE should be doing that anymore. That everyone should keep quiet and fall into line, like the sheep being herded into the sheep pen.
And sheep being herded into a sheep pen could actually be the perfect image of the passed year.
For the record, my own belief, for most of the passed year, has been that the virus does exist: and when I wrote and uploaded the long PDF last April, I was clear about not claiming the virus itself was a hoax. To me, too many people were getting ill for it to be an outright fraud: not to mention how many people, including nurses, would have to be outright lying and on a massive scale.
And that’s still broadly my position.
However, we have to repeatedly ask what it is people are getting ill FROM. And, in fact, the idea that the virus doesn’t even exist (at least not in the way we’re told) isn’t even as insane as some people think: which will be discussed further down.
Again, that’s not my position – but it’s also not a position I’m able to mock or vilify.
Certainly, the growing tendency to mock certain conspiracy claims is beginning to look a little too much like either wilful denial or anxiety-based reflex. For example, let’s take the classic one: that we’re in danger of vaccines being used to plant micro-chips in our bodies, because that’s what Bill Gates wants. Okay, sure, it sounds outlandish: and so people make fun of it. However, as I showed in the PDF from last year, the general idea of it is based in fact. If you simply do the research, you’ll find that Bill Gates was funding the development of ‘quantum dot’ nano-technology designed to be injected into the human body – and specifically via vaccinations.
The source I cited for this in the PDF was a mainstream scientific publication and a pre-pandemic article: it isn’t bullshit. For the record, the article in question is no longer there – it was there a year ago when I cited it in the PDF, but it’s been removed since then. Here’s the original url: [https://bioengineering.rice.edu/news/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/].
But here’s a screenshot of a similar article from March last year. And, for the record, the original article I cited in the PDF was dated December 2019: just prior to the pandemic outbreak.
Am I saying that the current COVID vaccines are utilising this ‘quantum dot’ technology? No, I’m not. But it’s a fact that this technology was being pursued by Gates. It’s a fact that Gates, who is also linked to GAVI’s ‘ID2020’, has talked about vaccinations as the pretext for a digital identity system. And it’s a fact that Gates is involved in various vaccination programmes (including links with, for example, the developers of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine): and that he has been a leading voice in mainstream discussion of this pandemic – a pandemic, for that matter, that was predicted and played out in a simulation event in late 2019 (Event 201) and in which the Gates Foundation was involved (and much of which I discussed recently with Andy Peacher on the Horizon Talk Radio podcast: here).
All of that is fact: not theory.
Conspiracy ‘theory’ is what various people then choose to conclude or extrapolate from those facts: but the underlying facts themselves are not the wild imaginings of some raving conspiracy nut. If you deny that – or mock people who talk about it – then you are engaging in wilful obfuscation of the truth: and you would probably need to examine what your own psychological motivations are for adopting that attitude.
But, with all of that as context, it is hardly stupid or ‘irresponsible’ for people to be suspicious that vaccines with micro-chips might be on the horizon: even if this current group of vaccines isn’t utilising that technology. Again, look up ‘quantum-dot’ technology and look up ‘ID2020’ – and then decide what you think. And also – as far as the quantum-dot stuff goes or biometrics and micro-chips – bear in mind that we don’t yet know if this current group of vaccines is going to prove effective in the long term: and therefore whether newer vaccines are going to be rolled out later on.
We also don’t know if more pandemic events (such as the hypothesised 2025 – 2027 pandemic) are on the way: in which case, subsequent vaccines or vaccine programmes may be pushed on us, potentially at some point utilising the quantum-dot technology and implementing the ID2020 model.
At any rate, I cited that particular ‘conspiracy theory’ example here just to illustrate the disingenuousness of mocking or dismissing ‘stupid conspiracy theories’ when discussing this COVID pandemic and all the related matters.
Alright, so let’s come back to the question of COVID deaths: and the question of what it is that people are dying from.
Certainly, the endless updates of numbers and death statistics should be taken with several dozen pinches of salt: these are put on our screens every day just to maintain an ongoing narrative. And there’s also something vaguely comical about the government (the UK government specifically) staging these bumbling presentations with confusing graphs and diagrams that most TV viewers can’t make head nor tale of.
A lot of this appears to be sleight of hand.
Kip Hansen writes extensively here about the misleading nature of COVID death statistics: and wisely shows how vague the language deliberately is when discussing cause of death.
Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski also raises the question of whether alleged COVID cases are being conflated with the common flu. “Influenza has been renamed COVID in large part,” he says. Using statistics from the CDC, he explains how ‘flu rates have remained at near-zero levels… Worldwide, health authorities have all reported sharply decreased influenza levels throughout what is normally peak flu season in the northern hemisphere…’
The question being whether flu deaths are being conflated with ‘COVID deaths’: and, if not, then where have all the flu cases gone?
Dr. James DeMeo, Ph.D, in this Undercover DC piece, also calls the 400,000 death toll (in America; and at the time of writing) an outright fraud: and lays out, in detail, his reasons for doing so.
A similar question has to be asked about numbers and statistics elsewhere.
It’s certainly been clear almost from day one that various causes of death have been conflated with ‘COVID 19’ – whether on purpose or not. The result, inevitably, is skewed and unreliable statistics. They’ve created a fog of confusion.
But the government and the media even seem to acknowledge this – albeit as discretely as they can. Because, whenever you see the news updates, more often than not the language is very carefully managed: so, for example, x amount of people died ‘having contracted COVID-19′. Not ‘from‘ COVID, but ‘having contracted COVID’.
What does that mean? Well, it is implying that people died from other causes, but just happened to also be registered as having had COVID 19. If people were outright dying FROM COVID-19 in huge numbers, why be so careful with the language? Why not just say it outright?
The other one we were hearing a lot, particularly from March to summer-ish last year was people dying from “underlying health conditions” after testing positive for COVID-19. So what did they die from? And what qualifies as a ‘COVID DEATH’? If a patient dies from pneumonia, but also tests positive for COVID, is it being labelled a pneumonia death?
Almost certainly not – it’s being labelled a COVID death. But that’s misleading, isn’t it? And that would mean that the excessively high numbers and statistics being spoken of all the time are not reliable.
There have, of course, been various accounts given by people, saying that COVID deaths were being falsely registered: that people who didn’t die from COVID were nevertheless being listed as COVID fatalities (including, according to some Sky News reports from January, a man who got hit by a lorry – but who happened to have tested positive for COVID earlier).
Which also raises the question: are some authorities simply labelling some deceased patients under ‘COVID deaths’ when the patients don’t even HAVE COVID? Has a definitive system of classification even been established – or disclosed – for how to differentiate a ‘COVID death’ from other causes of death where ‘COVID’ might NOT be the actual cause of death?
Well, apparently, anyone who dies within 30 days of a positive COVID test is counted as a COVID death. The length of time varies from country to country, but the basic system is the same. If you test positive for COVID, recover from it, and then get shot by a burglar, you died of COVID. If you test positive for COVID (and let’s not even get into the debate about whether the testing methods – or results – are reliable), but die of something else, you’re counted as having died from COVID.
That brings us back to the question of ‘underlying health conditions’: because people die from OTHER STUFF every year and in large numbers. So where are the parallel statistics to show how many people are dying from OTHER STUFF, as per usual – and have those numbers seen a big decrease, as with the aforementioned flu statistics?
Because, if so, then it would clearly point to COVID simply being made to replace all or most other standard causes of death in official cataloging: implying that, if standard death statistics from OTHER STUFF were being correctly attributed to their normal causes, the ‘COVID death’ numbers would shrink dramatically in an instant.
Also, after someone has already died – of whatever the cause of death was – what’s to stop them being posthumously described as having tested positive for COVID?
Add to this, the fact that relatives and loved ones are generally not allowed to be in the hospital or near anyone claimed to be dying from COVID-19, and that means there are no witnesses and no one to object or raise questions. It’s also very easy to imagine someone being admitted to hospital for some non-COVID-related illness – and then their relatives or significant others being told that they’ve contracted COVID and then, later, being told that the person has died from COVID: all without said relatives or significant others ever having been allowed to visit the hospital or to consult with healthcare workers.
Yes, that’s a bleak picture: but there have been cases, even reported on mainstream television news, that seem to lend themselves to that kind of scenario.
I was also being told way back in May by someone I know who works in a care home that residents had passed away there who definitely did not have COVID-19, but were nevertheless being listed as having died from it. Now, some of this could be hearsay, sure: in this particular instance, I trust the source – she had no reason to lie to me about that. And other similar claims have been made by others.
But taking all of this into account, it’s actually impossible to know what the true numbers of people are who’ve died from COVID: the official statistics are demonstrably unreliable.
But then there’s also the fact that, in a number of known cases in the UK, patients who were not infected with COVID nevertheless – supposedly – got infected with COVID once they were in hospital. And then died from it. Is that not suspect: or are we now so cowering and submissive that we’ll accept the deaths of relatives or loved ones on whatever terms are being presented to us – and not ask any questions?
Or is asking how a loved one died or what precisely happened while they were in hospital now deemed to be one of those ‘irresponsible’ questions? Does that make you a ‘Covidiot’?
Amid all the extreme measures being taken to combat COVID – from national lockdowns to fast-tracked vaccines – how could the hospital situation be so poorly managed that people were actually being infected with COVID by literally going to hospital for unrelated health problems?
According to a March article in The Guardian, it is believed that some 40, 600 people in the UK got COVID while in hospital for other illnesses: yes, let’s say that again – 40, 600 people.
Which brings us to another very key question. What happened with all those COVID emergency centers that were opened up SPECIFICALLY for dealing with COVID patients?
The biggest and most publicised of these was the Excel Centre in London, right? And the whole point, as I understood it, was that COVID patients would be isolated in those centers so that regular hospitals wouldn’t become super-spreader locations endangering patients with non-COVID-related conditions.
Well, here’s the brain-teaser. Why haven’t these COVID centers ever been USED?
Why go to the expense (and it was, according to official accounts, in excess of £500 million) and effort of establishing those locations – and then NOT USE THEM? But do a search on how many COVID patients have been sent to these ‘Nightingale Hospitals’. The Excel Centre saw barely 50 patients throughout the pandemic.
I keep thinking this must be wrong or misreported. But I keep checking and, nope, this is actually the case. In an October article titled ‘What Has Happened to England’s Seven Nightengale Hospitals?’, The Guardian reported that ‘most of the Covid centres have never had a patient…’
Elsewhere, we find that figures show the Birmingham Nightingale hospital was the most expensive to create (£66.4m): and has not treated any patients throughout the pandemic.
Something clearly doesn’t add up there. So the obvious question: where are all the COVID patients, if hardly anyone has ever been sent to the emergency locations? And why did these Nightingale hospitals never see use?
I’m not suggesting people haven’t died with or from COVID: but I am saying it’s very odd to have a supposed infection level and death-rate as high as we were been told daily for months, and yet practically no one has been sent to these emergency centers.
You don’t spend that kind of money – and then leave those locations unused. And not just unused – but unused during a mass pandemic crisis that was apparently severe enough to warrant shutting down the entire country for months and months on end. Again, given all the talk about nurses and NHS staff being endangered at regular hospitals, and given all the talk about hospitals being filled up to breaking point with COVID patients, and given all of the deaths of people who apparently contracted COVID *while* in hospital… this doesn’t make any sense.
Why, having established these purpose-built locations, would you then continue having COVID patients – and NON-COVID patients – being sent into regular hospitals TOGETHER? Again, let’s go back to the figure recently quoted in The Guardian for how many people are thought to have contracted COVID from going to regular hospitals: 40, 600.
It’s almost – if you were a suspicious sort – as if the real numbers were never high enough for enough patients to be sent to the Nightingale hospitals for treatment.
And that this whole narrative of overwhelmed hospitals and drastic COVID patient numbers wasn’t based in reality?
I mean, what other conclusion could we draw? That it’s just government incompetence? Even with this current comedy act of a Tory government, I’m not sure I buy government incompetence to the tune of half a billion pounds – especially when one of the central and continual narratives or hashtags of the pandemic was (rightly) ‘PROTECT THE NHS’.
It doesn’t compute: you can’t, on the one hand, be continuously telling the (broadly healthy) population to ‘socially distance’ and to stay away from family and friends houses (and to line up for their experimental vaccines), etc, and yet, on the other hand, carry on sending non-COVID patients into hospitals where supposedly infectious COVID patients are being kept. All while you’ve already spent half a billion on setting up custom-built facilities specifically for the purpose of avoiding that very state of affairs – and then not using any of those facilities.
Again, it’s almost as if the threat was never really as big as we were being told.
Or it’s almost as if we’re all being subject to this fog of confusion: in which no one is actually sure what COVID is, what it does, how widespread it is, or even what the definitive criteria is for judging whether someone has died from it.
So we have to come then to the elephant in the room. Is it even here? Or is it an illusion?
Now, certainly, most average people who default towards traditional or ‘trusted’ mainstream information sources would roll their eyes at any suggestion that the COVID pandemic isn’t real or that the virus doesn’t exist. And again, I for one – as I did back last April – still think a virus of some description did emanate out of Wuhan (and possibly Maryland) and has infected scores of people in various countries.
In other words, it isn’t a total illusion.
Again, my original line of thinking was to point to the Wuhan Biological lab: as well as to joint Chinese-American research into coronaviruses that had been going on from 2015, and which various scientists had been sounding the alarm over (again, see here). Here’s a screenshot of the 2015 article on the subject I used in the PDF (I’m assuming the actual article isn’t there anymore).
But the idea of COVID-19 – at least in the form we’ve been conditioned to believe – possibly not even existing isn’t quite as insane as the average person might be tempted to think it is.
Now, of course, most ‘respectable’ sources will label anyone who says such a thing as a loony ‘conspiracy theorist’. But keep in mind everything we’ve said here up until to this point: and now let’s proceed to the following. As OffGuardian pointed out, ‘In a request for a study which shows complete isolation and purification of the particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2, Michael Laue from one of the world’s most important representatives of the COVID-19 “panicdemic,” the German Robert Koch Institute (RKI), answered that “I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2…”
Just pause and think about that a moment.
Given the extent and severity of what has happened in the world in the passed year – the supposedly staggering death tolls, the devastation to businesses and livelihoods, etc – how can there have been no scientific paper published that has definitely isolated the supposed virus?
And, forgive me (I don’t even pretend to be a medical expert), but how can you develop a vaccine – let alone multiple vaccines – against a virus that hasn’t yet been definitively identified?
A number of people, including the likes of bio-statistician and cancer researcher Christine Massey, have submitted Freedom of Information Requests to various scientific and health institutions as well as political offices in different countries, asking for any documentation or records that show the SARS-COV-2 virus being isolated. But, as the Off-Guardian piece explains, ‘all 46 responding institutions/offices utterly failed to provide or cite any record describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation; and Germany’s Ministry of Health ignored their FOI request altogether.’
It also goes on to tell us, German businessman, Sameul Eckert, went as far as to offer a €230,000 reward for any documentation that scientifically showed the isolation of the virus and its genetic substance. Journalist Hans Tolzin likewise offered €100,000 for any scientific publication describing any controlled infection with the virus resulting in respiratory illness in test subjects.
But still, apparently, no documentation has been provided.
So… what is the implication of that?
That we’ve had months and months of national and global lockdowns, ruined livelihoods and damaged economies for… a virus that hasn’t even been officially documented to exist? Well, alright, maybe that’s a misreading or an exaggeration: but certainly the implication is there.
If nothing has actually been definitively or scientifically isolated or identified, the fog of confusion would make sense.
We’re talking about a ‘virus’ that apparently has multiple strains now, and can be carried and spread by ‘asymptomatic’ individuals who don’t even know they’ve contracted it; while, at the same time, can prove very quickly fatal to people with ‘underlying health conditions’.
You almost have to wonder if, in fact, the so-called ‘asymptomatic’ individuals who don’t manifest any palpable signs of infection are in fact not infected with any virus at all: and if, in fact, the vulnerable people dying from ‘underlying health conditions’ are in fact just… dying from underlying health conditions, just as they would at any other time and in any other year and from those same conditions.
In which case, the ‘COVID Pandemic’ would be – in large part – a vast illusion: even if, at its root, there was a genuine viral outbreak emanating out of Wuhan, China.
Am I saying that’s definitively the case? No. And, again, I believe entirely that there is a virus of some description: the central thrust of my inquiries has never been that there’s no virus, but has been instead to question whether the virus was deliberately manufactured and released (again, with a key point being those 2015 coronavirus experiments); and whether the pandemic is and was being used to facilitate other agendas and serve other purposes.
But I can hardly blame outright COVID ‘sceptics’ for denying even the existence of the virus.
I still think that something did come out of Wuhan: but it’s very possible that everything was deliberately inflated afterwards to create and maintain a fog of confusion and hysteria and to maintain a drawn-out state of psychological warfare. All of it based on a virus that apparently only has a 1% fatality rate – and which, even then, is usually paired to pre-existing health conditions (or ‘co-morbidities’).
And we also have to bear in mind that, as per ‘Event 201’, this whole pandemic was simulated or acted out already – just a couple of months prior to the real-world outbreak: meaning, at the very least, that there were groups, organisations or individuals, who came into this ‘pandemic’ with their eyes fully open and would’ve been able to co-opt or re-direct whatever real-world scenario was unfolding very quickly to fall into line with pre-existing agendas. Which is why, for example, you get someone like Bill Gates acting like all his Christmases have come at once.
Certainly, one can only be guarded when we factor in such pre-existing agendas as ‘ID2020’ (again, see here) or the ‘Event 201’ summit in New York – both of which preceded the supposed COVID pandemic. As a rule of thumb, whenever pre-existing agendas *precede* the crisis needed to facilitate their implementation, there’s reason to be suspicious – or at the very least to ask questions.
Even more so when experimental vaccines are pushed through quicker than ever before and are utilising brand new methods for the first time: and when the first people to win the ‘vaccine race’ happened to have links with shady eugenics organisations.
By the way, just as ‘ID2020’ and the Event 201 coronavirus pandemic simulation preceded the real-world outbreak (in the case of Event 201, is was by mere weeks), these ‘vaccine passports’ we’re all now talking about are NOT an organic response to an unforeseen crisis: the European Commission, it appears, first published its proposal for vaccine passports back in April 2018 (see here). There was also a ‘Global Vaccination Summit’ held in Brussels in September 2019 – just weeks before the Event 201 pandemic summit in New York.
And again, if anyone doesn’t want to engage in these types of questions being raised or prefers not to, that’s fine – we all have that right and that choice to decide what paradigm we prefer to keep. But, if you’re also continuing to mock, dismiss or vilify those who are asking questions or raising concerns, it really would be worth asking yourself why you’re so uncomfortable with those questions and concerns being raised.