It's Gonna Be OK!
Let's be logical.
To figure out what to do, we have to figure out what's actually going on. And to do that, we need logic.
When you're in the midst of a crisis, the LAST thing you need is a state of panic and emotional decision-making. We want to approach this situation as rationally as possible.
The Proper Response
Looking at It Rationally
"Is there a new virus?"
But there are always new viruses. That's what viruses do; they invent new versions of themselves. They're always doing this. That's why flu and colds keep coming back year after year.
A "novel coronavirus" is not a "novel" thing.
The pertinent question is: "How dangerous is it?"
And... "Is its level of danger enough to justify the level of alarm, and authoritarian responses we've seen - i.e. the total shutdown of human society, and universal condemnation of the human body to the status of property of the bio-medical industrial complex?"
Is the virus dangerous enough to justify such a terrifying response to it?
And even if it were, would such a response actually be worth it?
Is it worth producing the ugliest society that has ever been conceived?
Does such cruelty reduce the virulence of the pathogen in the first place?
Might this type of response make the "crisis"
even worse - rather than better?
If you eliminate community, collapse the economy, remove all the social and spiritual activities that sustain people's mental health, keep people out of the sunlight, terrorize them with 9/11-style bioterror porn from morning to night, and crush the human spirit more than it's ever been crushed before...
...does that even help with fortifying
our immune systems against a pathogen?
Or might this actually exacerbate the problem?
We'll be exploring the answers to these questions as you scroll down.
"Of course the virus is dangerous! It's contagious. It kills people! It's worth doing WHATEVER MUST BE DONE to defeat it! No price is too high to pay for SAFETY!"
Lots of viruses are contagious and kill people. Flu does that. Even colds do that, in people who are frail and vulnerable. That's why standard practice in nursing homes is to isolate residents who have colds. But not the general public.
We have never had a blanket quarantine of all society.
"Yes, but this new one kills MORE PEOPLE than colds or influenza! A LOT MORE!"
How do you know that?
"Because the numbers say so! The government says that THOUSANDS of people have died so far!"
Thousands of people succumb to the flu every year.
Official estimates range from 20,000 to 80,000 per year in the United States, and 290,000 to 650,000 worldwide.
For the flu.
"Well in the USA, over _ _ _ , 0 0 0 people have died from Covid19 so far! And almost _ _ _ , 0 0 0 worldwide! That's several times more than a flu season!"
Those numbers involve statistical tricks. The same way a clever tax attorney can manipulate numbers to decrease your taxes, a clever statistician can do the same with statistics - especially if he has the cooperation of the relevant government agencies who can define the standards and protocols for collecting and reporting those numbers.
"Oh please, I don't buy into that! That sounds like a conspiracy theory!"
We have a very simple and handy explanation of exactly how they're doing it, complete with all relevant citations and sources, which you'll see a bit further down, if you keep reading.
"Bah! I don't care what YOU say. I believe the scientists."
There are plenty of scientists who say this is equivalent to the flu. Some say it's even less.
"But they're not REAL scientists."
Dr. Ioannidis is a professor of epidemiology at Stanford.
Michael Levitt is a Nobel laureate.
Wolfgang Wodarg is a former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee.
There are many doctors and scientists who say this is a glorified seasonal bug:
"There's always varying hypotheses within the scientific community. In the end, we have to trust someone - and I trust the scientists who have the endorsement of the government. Whatever the government says, that's what I consider truth."
Alright. Fine. Let's assume your numbers are the correct ones. According to the W.H.O., as of August 12th, 2020, the virus has claimed 746,000 lives. Compared to the same organization's annual flu-death estimate of 290,000-650,000, Covid has claimed 1.15 to 2.57 times that of an average flu season.
In the USA, as of the same date, the number sits at about 167,000, which, compared to the 2017-2018 flu season, is 2.73 times as bad.
"But the year hasn't ended yet, and neither has the pandemic!"
Supposing it reaches 300,000 by December 31st, that's 4.91 times the recent flu season.
"But a second wave is coming because of weather!"
Even if it reaches 400,000, that's 6.55 times the 2017-2018 flu season.
Even if it were 7 times the flu, that's like packing 7 years of the flu into one year.
That's nothing to sneeze at...
but is it worth all of this insanity?
Not to mention, authoritarian lockdown measures will only partially lower that number (if they even lower it at all... they might raise it, as we'll be explaining further down this page). In any case, it won't eliminate the whole thing.
And even if it somehow, magically, eliminated the entire thing and stopped the pandemic in its tracks, and completely halted all infection (which is obviously impossible, but let's just say it could) - in other words, even if we assume the worst-case scenario, and an absolute fairies-and-unicorns view of the effectiveness of lockdowns:
Is stopping 6 or 7 years worth of the flu
worth completely transforming our society
into a totalitarian medical dystopia?
Does it justify the most intense advancement
of collective child abuse ever devised?
Does it justify collapsing the economy, abolishing all dignity, and banishing the entire concept of individual rights to the trash-heap of history?
"But the numbers would have been A LOT HIGHER, if not for the lockdowns and mask rules! Those rules prevented a lot more carnage from happening! It would have been MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of deaths, without the lockdowns!"
Then how do you explain countries that didn't do any lockdowns, like South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Sweden, and basically all of Africa? Shouldn't those countries have bodies piling up in the streets?
In Sweden, which is now famous for its refusal to lockdown, there are about 6,000 reported Covid fatalities as of August. That's in a national population of 10 million people. (If their population were inflated to the size of the USA, that would be 198,000 fatalities, compared to America's 167,000 - a difference of only 18.6%).
Is all of the lockdown insanity
worth a difference of 18.6%?
Furthermore, Sweden's curve has flattened. Their situation has stabilized, indicating that they may have reached herd immunity. Most lockdowned countries are still climbing. So the real difference is less than 18.6%.
And remember: Most of these fatality statistics - especially in the United States - are manipulatively inflated anyway. The "hundreds of thousands" number you're looking at has been calculated fraudulently to begin with. The real number of victims is a fraction of the fear-porn one.
"Maybe you have some good points. I admit, you got me thinking.
But like... we're... IN A PANDEMIC! Don't you just... FEEL it? It's everywhere! Don't you watch the news? This is a REAL THING, and it's REALLY, REALLY BAD! People are dropping dead all over the place! Hospitals are overwhelmed! Doctors and nurses are dying! People are intubated! How can you deny that there's clearly SOMETHING unprecedented going on? AAHHHHHH!"
The things you just mentioned... they happen every year.
The difference is, the media rarely filmed it. If they had filmed it, and broadcast it as ubiquitously (and sensationally) as they're doing this year, they could have created a panic in any cold/flu season if they had they wanted.
This principle is one of the oldest tricks in the media's book, and it's called outlier hyperfocus.
Media and Emotions:
The Power of
The mechanism is simple. By focusing lots of attention on a small number of incidents, the media can create a public perception that those incidents are much more common than they really are. A clever media campaign can make outliers look like norms
And once you find them, you can focus the news cameras on them and broadcast their footage and stories with such intensity, and such ubiquity, that it makes these phenomena look like... a... "pandemic."
It involves picking a few statistical outliers (rare events), and then focusing all of the cameras on them, and thereby making it seem like what's happening to them is happening everywhere, to everyone.
Let's recall some historical examples.
Remember how they spent decades scaremongering us about "drugs"?
All they had to do was find a few people who smoked weed, and also committed crimes...
...just a few people...
- and they could make weed-induced crime look like a pandemic.
They would bring in the cameras and focus all their attention on a small number of people, make tear-jerker films about them, complete with sobbing family members and sad music... and these stories all over the airwaves, in documentaries and public service announcements and commercials.
...ignoring the fact that, when it comes to potentially lethal drugs like heroin, the illegality is what makes them lethal in the first place (since you can't measure an accurate dose if you're getting it from the black market)...
Logic is always the first victim of media sensationalism. But not the last.
These commercials actually caused more people to die, since they caused prohibition to continue, which prevented users from being able to accurately measure their doses. (And this is a mistake that was to be repeated in the coronavirus situation, as we'll be exploring further down this page).
But that doesn't matter to the media. All that matters to them is crafting the narrative.
All it takes is a few. That's all the media needs, in order to make it seem like everyone who uses any illegal herb is going on a crime-spree.
And when it comes to LSD, all they needed was one person. Literally, one person who took LSD and then jumped off a roof because he thought he "could fly", and they made it look like LSD sends everyone jumping off the roof.
And the technique worked. It manufactured consent for the "war on drugs" for 50 years.
Let's fast-forward to 9/11 and terrorism:
All they had to find was one guy sneaking a bomb somewhere in his shoe, and one guy mailing anthrax letters, they can make it seem like there are terrorists lurking around every corner.
And it worked. It manufactured consent for the "war on terror" - a new wave of civil-rights repression and imperial conquest of half the globe, for 20 years, and counting.
This is what the media does. This is its job. This is what it's good at.
"OK, I understand what you're saying. And I agree that "Outlier Hyperfocus" is a dirty trick, and those other hysterias weren't justified.
But THIS ONE IS! There really is a pandemic!
I can FEEL it! Don't you feel the fear everywhere?"
The existence of fear doesn't prove there's really a plague - all it proves, by itself, is that the media wants you to fear.
That feeling you have - that sense of conviction that there "really is a pandemic" - all this proves is that the people managing your feelings - the media - want you to think there's a pandemic. It doesn't prove that there actually is one.
The other hysterias (reefer madness and terrorism) also felt real, while we were in the midst of them.
The question is not "can you recognize a manufactured crisis after it happens"... but "can you recognize it while it's happening?"
"I know this one's real, because... there are... body bags!
Let's approach this with the mind of a scientist.
You have reached the "conclusion" that "more body bags means more fatalities."
But might there be any confounding variables that may have led to this?
Yes. There is at least one:
The protocols for disposal have changed.
Governments have instructed hospitals to treat all bodies as potential biohazards, which requires different methods of disposal.
Normally, the funeral homes simply come in each day to collect bodies of the deceased. They come in, pick them up, load them into the vehicle, and take them to the funeral home.
But now, they can't do that. They now need special refrigerated trucks, special protective gear, and so forth. This is difficult to do, and it's slowing down the process. Thus, they're "piling up."
Did CNN mention this information in their "Oh my gosh, bodybags" report that you watched? Betting they didn't.
"But there are mass graves!"
They're burying people in mass %&$#ing graves!"
Who is this "they"?
It's actually one city - New York - and the phenomenon is 150 years old.
They're talking about Hart Island - a place where the city buries people who had no next-of-kin to claim them. People without families. Or, more importantly, people whose families didn't come to claim their body. Who didn't come in time.
"But the numbers have ramped up! They used to bury 25 a week! Now they're burying 25 a day!"
Are you talking about articles like this one?
First of all, it's 25 a day 5 days a week - so really, it's more like 17 per day.
But again, let's be scientific, and ask: "Might there be a confounding variable?"
Turns out there is. Again. There is a reason for the increase, and it's not an increase in deaths.
Normally, NYC hospitals keep a cadaver for 30-60 days, waiting for it to be claimed, and if it's not claimed in that time, they send it to Hart Island.
And guess what: The City changed that time frame, reducing it down to 6 days.
That'll do it.
If you reduce the time window for people to claim bodies, then obviously you will have many more of them unclaimed, sending them off to the "mass grave" on the island.
Did the article/broadcast you read/watched mention that?
Didn't think so.
"But they increased the time-window from 6 days back up to 14 days. Not the full 30-60 days, admittedly... but still, it's no longer just 6. They brought it up to 14."
But not before they had time to collect the shocking statistics from the period with the 6-day window! They collected those statistics, published them in fear-porn articles FIRST, and THEN raised the time-window back up again (sort of).
See how they do it?
Considering the downright journalistic malpractice of these reports, shouldn't you ask yourself WHY they're doing this?
Why they're so intent on weaving this narrative, even to the point of disregarding basic journalistic ethics?
"But hospitals are overwhelmed!"
Hospital overcrowding happens every year. In 2018, flu season was so bad, hospitals in L.A. were treating patients in tents in the parking lot.
But did you hear about it?
Was it splashed all over the TV, all day, every day?
Here's the article, in case you want to read it.
If hospitals treating patients in tents was not "news" last year, why does it suddenly become news this year?
Because there was no narrative to weave then.
"But it's way worse this year! It's not just a few hospitals - it's practically all of them! They're all overwhelmed this year!"
The city of Houston Texas built a temporary "field hospital" to deal with excess patients - but then dismantled it after it didn't see a single patient.
The hospital ships sent to New York Harbor were dismissed after only a few weeks, after treating only a fraction of the number of patients they were intended for, many of whom did not even have the "coronavirus."
The doomsday projections of hospital capacity made by Governor Gavin Newsom in California were exaggerated by orders of magnitude.
There's even an entire genre of videos on Youtube now, called #FilmYourHospital.
Citizen journalists are venturing into the hospitals in their cities that the news-media says are "overwhelmed", only to find that they're virtually empty, or operating normally. They capture this on camera, so it's hard to argue that it's "fake news."
Here's a handy compilation, to get you started:
Here's some more:
New York City Man does his own checks asks questions ??
Doctors and nurses are even being furloughed due to lack of demand.
If this were really a "pandemic", with hospitals overwhelmed with patients, and not enough doctors to treat them all, why would doctors be furloughed?
"But I saw footage on CNN of hospitals that ARE overwhelmed!"
Again, this exemplifies the media's outlier hyperfocus.
All it takes is one or two overwhelmed hospitals in the entire country, and if billion-dollar-funded networks converge on them, they can make it seem like it's the every hospital in the world.
Citizen journalists are filming the exact hospitals that the news-media tells us are crowded, and showing that they're not.
Crowded hospitals are apparently so hard to find, that some networks, like CBS, are using fake footage from other hospitals, in other countries!
CBS later admitted it:
They say they "made a mistake." But was it, really?
The original clip (from Italy) has a Sky News logo in the upper left corner. (Look at it - you can see it). In order to produce their own plagiarized version, CBS would have needed to remove the logo.
They knew exactly what they were doing.
Why did they need to do something like this? Were they unable to find an actual overwhelmed hospital in New York?
If "just the facts" would have been enough to scare you the way they wanted, why did they resort to fraud?
Can't you tell something is off about all this?
"But it really is more this year! A lot more! The numbers say so!"
Let's talk about the numbers now.
Cooking the Numbers
"The numbers prove there's a pandemic."
And who provides these numbers?
And why is the government trustworthy?
"Why wouldn't it be?"
The same way a clever tax attorney can manipulate numbers to lower a client's taxes, a clever statistician can use statistical accounting tricks to produce a narrative to manipulate public perception.
Especially if they're working in concert with a government that's willing to impose policies to produce more results in line with the desired agenda.
Considering the fact that its been lying to you about every topic under the Sun, since you were born, why would you trust it now?
"Because independent experts are informing them!"
Experts also said America faced a tidal wave of Islamic terrorists, and invading Afghanistan was the only way to stop it.
Experts said Saddam had WMD's and was planning to use them.
Experts said the Iraq invasion would last a few months to a year. It's now going on 20 years.
Those were the foremost experts in counter-terrorism. And they were wrong.
"Ok but this time, it's based on science!"
Science is not a group of people. It's not a social class or institution. It's a Method.
"Sure. I know. So?"
So how do you know the group of people and institutions that call themselves "science" are actually using the Method of science, when it comes to this topic?
"Because science is part of academia, and I trust academia."
And how do you know academia is beyond the reach of corruption?
Considering that every other major institution in society has been corrupted by the influence of corporate oligarch money, why would academia be an exception? Why would it be the one institution immune?
"I guess you have a point there. But are you saying they're lying about coronavirus statistics? What evidence do you have for that?"
Well, we know the hospitals are counting many non-coronavirus deaths as coronavirus deaths, and counting them in the virus statistics.
If a person dies of any cause - any cause - but also tested positive for coronavirus, then their death is counted in the virus death count.
Heart disease? Cancer?
COPD and GI issues and chronic kidney disease?
Falling off a building?
If you had the coronavirus in your system, then the hospital lists coronavirus as the cause of death, and includes you in the statistics.
Even if you were asymptomatic. Even if it had nothing to do with the death.
Here is a gallery of over THREE HUNDRED testimonies of individual people who say that their friend or relative was listed as "dying of Covid" when they died of something else entirely.
Click to view the whole gallery
And these are not merely a "local errors" being made by hospitals. These are mandatory directives coming down from governments.
In the USA, the CDC and various state governments have required all hospitals to report all fatalities as COVID19 fatalities as long as the deceased tested positive for coronavirus in their system.
It's not even on a hospital-by-hospital basis. It's a national and statewide requirement.
The cause-of-death does NOT have to be scientifically determined as COVID19.
No autopsy has to be performed.
No link has to be shown between the viral infection and mechanism of death.
As long as they had the virus when they died, they are required to be included in the statistics.
"This sounds like one of those... conspiracy theories! How do you know this?"
Because the government admits it.
It's not a "theory" if the people doing it admit that they're doing it.
"LOL, the New York Post? That's a rag."
How about Minnesota Public Radio?
"Meh. I don't trust those sources."
How about video?
Here's Dr. Birx on video admitting it:
"Meh! Dr. Birx is a floozy! An airhead! I don't respect her."
OK. How about state health departments?
"From red Bubba-states like Mississippi? LOL."
How about deep blue states, like... Illinois?
Here's the Illinois Department of Health admitting it:
You see? They're telling you right to your face: COVID19 death statistics include everyone who dies with coronavirus in their system, regardless of what they actually died FROM.
Oh, and just in case you want to hear another "side" of this (and you should always seek out more than one side!), here is the Factcheck.org article about this issue:
Like many "Factcheck" articles, it starts out by calling the claim a "wild conspiracy theory", but then goes on to confirm the claim, as you read the text, without acknowledging that it's confirming it!
For instance, this article says:
“In the normal course, autopsies would then determine whether the person died of the effects of the COVID virus, whether the person had a brain tumor or brain hemorrhage for example that might be unrelated to it and what the relative significance of both the infection and the pre-existing disease is,” he said. Even if the number of autopsies being conducted are low because of concerns of infection, he said, “then you will include in those numbers some people who did have a pre-existing condition that would have caused death anyway, but that’s probably a small number.”
Likewise, Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, told us in an email: “There are going to be some people who die of something else, happen to have COVID and get tested, and get counted as COVID deaths but would die anyway.”
You see, the dumb article confirms, in its text, the claim it denied in its introduction. Typical.
"But how MANY of the official "Covid fatalities" does this trick account for?"
Nobody knows. And that's the whole point. You will never see CNN make this distinction. Nor NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post... None of them have made any attempt to hash out this difference. They just give you one lump-sum: 100,000 deaths (or whatever it is at the time), and that's it.
How many of those 100,000 are deaths from non-coronavirus causes?
Isn't it odd that the "news" never talks about this?
Isn't it more than odd?
Isn't it journalistic malpractice?
They don't care.
But guess what? That's just the tip of the iceberg.
It gets even crazier.
Hospitals have been ordered to record a death as coming from COVID19 any time a deceased patient had contact with someone who had the virus - even if the deceased never actually tested positive themselves!
NO TEST + DYING = COVID19 FATALITY.
Let that sink in.
Let's refer back to the same "fact-check" article just cited:
"The CDC advises that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, “if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” It further indicates that if a “definitive diagnosis cannot be made … but it is suspected or likely … it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”
One hypothetical example cited by the CDC is an 86-year-old woman dying after exhibiting symptoms such as a high fever, severe cough, and difficulty breathing, “after being exposed to an ill family member who subsequently was diagnosed with COVID-19.” The CDC says that “probable COVID-19” may be listed as the underlying cause of death — a deduction made “given the patient’s symptoms and exposure to an infected individual.”
So yea. Again, confirming the very idea it just called a "conspiracy theory" a few paragraphs earlier.
And here is an official CDC guideline stating exactly this:
Here's the link.
Right there, it's telling you they don't even have to test positive - they don't even have to be tested at all - in order for COVID-19 to be listed as the cause of death, if they die.
Your government is admitting this to you, right to your face!
"Oh but come on! If they were coughing, if they had a temperature, if they couldn't breathe, it's obvious what disease they had!"
Is it really?
The "novel coronavirus" is not the only virus that causes those symptoms.
Can you think of any others?
"Ohhhh no. No you don't. Don't you dare say this is the seasonal flu! I'm warning you!"
Well, what about the fact that...
The flu was especially bad this year,
yet nobody's mentioning it anymore.
The flu still exists. It didn't drop off the face of the Earth.
It didn't stop existing when COVID came along.
The flu didn't say, "alright COVID, you got this, i'ma peace out."
If the flu still exists, where is it? What is it doing? How many of the people getting sick are actually flu victims?
A ton, according to CNN:
Let's look at what we have:
1. The worst *flu* season in decades...
2. Counting every death from flu-like respiratory symptoms as "Covid-19" WITHOUT testing them...
I mean, come on. This is obvious.
A huge portion of the "death toll" from COVID19 is actually the seasonal flu.
Well, have a look at this article from the New York Times:
Yes, you're reading that correctly. In just one data "adjustment", they increased the fatality count for the ENTIRE COUNTRY...
...by 17 percent!!!
And NONE OF THEM TESTED POSITIVE FOR THE VIRUS.
The New York Times just admitted it! Right there!
Are you seeing this? Are you processing the implications of this?
And it's not just in the USA.
They're doing the same thing in Italy...
And in Germany...
And in the UK...
They're doing the same thing everywhere.
And it's increasing the so-called "fatality count"... massively. It's nowhere near what they're telling you on the TV. It's probably less than the seasonal flu.
Yes. LESS THAN THE FLU.
Here is the Great Esteemed and Unquestionable Dr. Fauci admitting it:
And a Stanford University professor of epidemiology:
The common thread is that we overreacted to a virus with a fatality rate similar to that of the seasonal flu.
If you get this virus, your chances of survival are the same, and perhaps BETTER THAN,
the seasonal flu.
"But people are dying in hospitals! I see it on the news!"
Please see the section on media tricks.
Here's a pretty picture. Stare at it and let that stress out. Deep breaths. In and out.
Feel better? :)
"Well yea. A little bit.
But it's surging again!"
What's surging? Fatalities?
"Well no, the rate for those is falling. But CASES are surging!"
Because testing is surging.
"But the tests are PICKING UP cases, dummy!"
The more tests you administer, the more cases you're going to detect. It doesn't mean that anything is "increasing."
Imagine if we did this with tests for blood type.
Let's say we're testing for Type-B blood.
Today, we administer 10 tests, and get 1 positive. (1 person with Type-B blood).
Next week, we administer 100 tests, and get 10 positives (10 people with Type-B blood).
The following week, 1000 tests, and 100 positives.
The week after that, 10,000 tests, and 1,000 positives.
Then 100,000 tests, and 10,000 positives.
Newspaper articles could then be written with titles like:
"Type-B Blood Increasing by 10x per week!"
"Type-B Blood Spreading Like Wildfire!"
And more articles asking, desperately:
"What's causing this epidemic of Type-B blood?"
Yes, this is comically un-scientific, and yet it's exactly what they've done with "Covid-19" testing.
And your oligarch "news" is mentioning NOTHING of this to you.
"Well OK, I admit... this... does cast doubt on the honesty of our medical establishment. But still, if all those people have the virus, that's still a problem! You can't say it's not a problem."
Sure we can. It's not a problem. It's the opposite of a problem. The more cases there are, the lower the fatality rate.
Do you know how the fatality rate is calculated?
"Hmm... I'm guessing it would be... the total number of fatalities divided by the total number of caes?"
If the number of fatalities stays the same (and it is...)
...and the number of hospitalizations stays the same (and it is... and we know because the hospitals are still not overcrowded, as plenty of citizen journalists have documented)...
...but at the same time, the number of cases is increasing...
...then this is not cause for alarm. It's cause for celebration. Because It means the CFR (case fatality rate) is getting lower and lower.
The more you increase the denominator (the number on the bottom of the fraction), the smaller the quotient (the answer) gets.
Increasing the denominator decreases the quotient.
More cases (but same amount of fatalities and hospitalizations) means lower rates of fatalities and hospitalizations.
"Ah, I see how that works. So it's not as deadly as we thought, because more people have gotten it than we thought."
"How much more, I wonder."
Good thing to ask. It might be... a lot more.
According to the W.H.O., 2% - 3% of the entire world population has already been infected (and most didn't even realize they had it).
That's 156 million to 234 million people. Already infected. With most not noticing it.
That WHO estimate was announced on April 20th. Let's check the "official case count" from CNN for April 20th:
2.4 million cases, CNN says.
How badly is CNN under-counting cases, according to this W.H.O. study??
Let's divide 156 million by 2.4 million.
That's 65 times.
And for 234 million?
That's 98 times!
That means that (as of April 20th), the real case-count was 65-98 times greater than the officially reported case-count.
Where are we getting this figure? Here:
Don't just read the title. Read the article. The article says the opposite of what the title says. (A standard trick in sensationalist journalism).
The text of the article says that 2% - 3% of the entire world population has antibodies! That's not "a few." That's 65-98 times the official case count!
Why did The Guardian lie in its article title?
Which means that the real denominator is not 10 times more than the officially reported one - it's 65-98 times more.
Which of course means that the quotient - the fatality rate for COVID19 - is 65-98 times lower than the official figure.
Need more evidence?
Check these out:
Netherlands: The Dutch National Institute for Health conducted an antibody study and showed 3% of their 17 million population likely has had the virus.
Sweden: A random sampling of 100 people at a blood bank showed at least 11% had antibodies.
Note: You'll need Google Translate for that.
Italy: A random sampling at a blood bank showed 40 out of 60 people had antibodies. That's 67%!
Boston - Massachusetts General Hospital conducted a test of 200 passersby in one area and found a 3rd had antibodies.
Also in Boston- a Homeless shelter tested all 397 people and a 146 tested positive for the virus. None showed any symptoms thus far.
In Finland - The actual number of people infected with the new coronavirus may be dozens of times higher than the number of laboratory-confirmed infections, reports the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
These articles support the thesis that the denominator is greatly suppressed, and therefore, the quotient (the death rate) is greatly inflated.
Also: Notice how these articles are trying to spin these findings as scary, because it means there are "so many cases out there" - and conveniently forgetting to explain how it means that the death rate is lower (because of the deflated denominator).
Why do they want you to be more afraid of something that they, as journalists, just figured out, is less dangerous?
Is this a simple failure of logic on their part? Or is it perhaps on purpose?
Anyway, the point is, mainstream official publications are confirming what we're saying here.
We don't need to use "unofficial" sources.
We don't need to rely on any "conspiracy websites."
We don't need any sources besides the official ones.
We can use the same sources as everyone else. We can use the WHO, the CDC, Fauci, Birx, and all of those familiar names.
The fatality rate is much, much lower
than they've reported.
And this is after just one type of number-cooking! There are waaaay more!
Like, for instance, the fact that they've been restricting testing to only those cases that are the most severe - the most likely to result in fatality. They say, "If you're not sick enough to go to the hospital, you don't need a test."
So they're skewing their tests specifically toward those people who have the highest probability of severe symptoms and fatality. Does that sound "scientific" to you?
It's kind of like conducting a political poll on the issue of "gun control"... while standing in the parking lot of of a gun store.
The complete opposite of scientific.
Still don't believe us because we're just a random website on the internet? Ok. Here's a doctor (Dr. Jay Bhattacharya) talking about this idea:
And if you're short on time, here's briefer article of a Stanford Professor saying the same thing:
(Not a "random schmuck with a Facebook page" - a Stanford Professor!)
OK, now here's another pretty picture you can look at while you breathe easier than you've breathed in weeks:
"Wait! We're not done yet! I still have more ammo!
How about overall excess deaths? Those are up this year! More people are dying, overall, than in previous years! That HAS to be from COVID19!"
Again, being science-minded, we have to ask, "Are there confounding variables here?"
How Government Policies
Are Exacerbating the Crisis
Even if there is an increase in general sickness and morbidity in society in general right now, we don't know how much of it comes from the novelty and virulence of the new virus, vs. how much comes from policy-induced collective immuno-suppression.
And there are many such variables:
1. Deferred care
In March and April, hospitals closed themselves off to non-coronavirus healthcare. People with cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, and other problems had to postpone their care.
Even after the rules eased and these patients were allowed to return, many chose to stay away anyway, due to fear induced by the media.
How many of the "overall excess deaths" came from the postponing of non-covid medical care?
2. Sudden Induced Poverty
If you force an entire country into sudden unemployment, what happens?
How does poverty impact public health?
How does sudden, mass poverty impact public health?
If public health is decreased, what results can be expected?
How much of the overall increase in deaths in recent months are from the cascading effects of sudden mass-poverty?
What kind of psychological state do people develop when they're forced to sit home and do nothing all day?
How does that state of mind impact health?
3. Social isolation.
It has long been known that our health is impacted by our social lives. Loneliness causes immuno-suppression.
Some elderly people have not had any human contact since February.
If there is an increase in the severity of symptoms of infectious disease, how much of that increase might be due to immuno-suppression from locking people in their homes, cancelling social events, closing public spaces, and making people "socially distance" and avoid visiting their friends and families?
Loneliness and sudden unemployment both lead to depression, which also suppresses the immune system.
How much did this sudden induced mass-depressive episode impact the population's immune systems?
A recent study found that, in the United States, for every 1% increase in unemployment, there is a corresponding increase in suicides by 69,300.
Unemployment skyrocketed to an unprecedented 30-40% in April.
All around the world, doctors are reporting an enormous increase in lockdown-associated suicides.
THE COST OF QUARANTINE: ‘We’ve Seen A Year’s Worth Of Suicide Attempts In The Last Four Weeks,’ California Doc Says
Trauma doctors at a northern California medical center say the hospital has seen a huge spike in suicide attempts amid the coronavirus COVID-19 lockdowns.
Dr. Mike deBoisblanc, head of the trauma at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek near San Francisco, said the loss of more than 37 million jobs across the country amid state shutdowns of businesses deemed “nonessential” and lengthy lockdowns have affected mental health.
Have any of your news reports mentioned this issue?
One reporter did, when she asked New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Instead of denying it, his answer was essentially "Yea, so what?"
And to top off the insanity, those suicides might be counted as "Covid fatalities" in the statistics, and contributing to the "100,000+" tally!
6. Forbidden sunlight.
Sunshine is essential for immune health.
Yet they're ordering us to get as little of it as possible.
People were threatened with fines (and arrest!) for going outside.
"Whatever you do, do NOT get sunlight, unless you absolutely HAVE to. Sincerely, your Governor."
Yea yea, exercising is permitted. But you better be careful it's not non-essential exercise.
If you mess up... you can go to jail for a year.
Best to just stay inside, and not press your luck.
You might not have taken these orders that seriously. But a lot of people did. Especially the elderly. Many of them stayed away from the Sun, because their government told them to.
What happens to public health when you keep a population indoors, during the beautiful days of spring, away from sunlight, and glued to their TV's?
7. Forbidden Exercise
Gyms have been forcefully closed.
Athletic tracks were forcefully closed.
People were arrested for surfing.
Why ban surfing? Why ban kayaking? What do these solitary forms of recreation have to do with stopping transmission of a virus?
Jogging was banned.
They forbade hiking.
Why do this? Why close hiking trails?
Do trees transmit viruses?
Isn't hiking in the wilderness the #1 most social-distancy thing a person can do?
It's also jut about the healthiest thing you can do. Fresh air, being in nature, being around trees - it's all essential. Especially now, when health is so important. Tons of scientific studies confirm this.
As if we needed science to confirm something so obvious.
And yet, they don't want us doing it. They're threatening us with arrest if we do.
What do you think happens to public health when entire populations are forbidden from exercising or being in Nature?
8. Forced muzzling.
There is a reason we haven't worn face-masks as our default apparel for the past 200,000 years.
A. They decrease oxygen intake (even leading some people to faint).
B. They increase CO2 inhalation, lowering the pH (acidifying) the bloodstream.
C. They create warm, moist reservoirs of microbes, right in front of the mouth.
D. They force the re-inhalation of exhaled virions, increasing viral load.
And no, there is no reason to wear them:
9. Nursing home slaughter.
Several U.S. governors, (those of California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey) sent infected patients into nursing homes, in complete contravention to well-established protocols for those facilities.
Even in normal years, colds and flu can kill many people in nursing homes, because of how frail they tend to be. Even if someone has a common cold, they should not be sent into a nursing home. In normal years, even common cold patients are isolated from those facilities.
Yet these governors sent coronavirus patents in.
According to some estimates, this move could have let to over half of the total estimated "death toll."
And they were all in the 5 states that had the "worst outbreaks."
-Sending sick patients to nursing homes (the flu, and even the common cold, can kill people in nursing homes).
-Killing patients with ventilators (and governments paying doctors to do it)
Seeing the big picture yet?
10. Ventilator slaughter.
Let's use our heads. If you:
A. Shove a tube down someone's throat
B. Immobilize them for weeks at a time
C. Pump them with narcotics for weeks at a time
D. Muscles atrophy
E. Circulation plummets
F. Organs shut down
G. Vital functions erode
H. The body breaks down
Just from the intubation.
A person wouldn't need to even have a "virus" in order for such a treatment to kill them.
Ventilators have been likened to manslaughter.
How many "Covid fatalities" are really intubation fatalities?
11. Extreme Anxiety
Don't go outside. Don't exercise. Don't go to work. Don't go see your friends and family.
Just stay stuck inside, on your sofa, alone, watching TV, and shivering in fear.
What do you think happens to public health when you've got people terrified for months?
1. When you're afraid, your fight-or-flight response takes over.
2. Stress hormones start circulating.
3. Stress hormones interfere with immune function.
4. Blood is diverted to the extremities - the arms, legs, hands, and feet.
That's because, in our evolutionary past, anxiety usually meant there was something to run from. A lion, tiger, a pack of wolves, and so on.
So the fight or flight response sends blood to the extremities so that you can use them to run really fast, and climb stuff to get out of the way.
So when you're chronically anxious, all that blood is going to your extremities, instead of to your internal organs.
5. Organs, lacking blood flow, cannot function optimally.
Cells have less blood for regeneration. Many bodily-sustenance functions drop. Tissue is not repaired. Enzymes are not produced.
7. If you're sick, you stay sick or get sicker.
8. If you aren't sick, you're more vulnerable to getting sick.
Chronic anxiety is bad for health.
If you're suffering from intense anxiety all day long, if you're glued in front of a television that's pumping you up with extra strength industrial fear-porn, then your immune system is going to become compromised.
And what is the corporate media doing right now?
Suppressing the entire population's immune systems.
MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post... They are engaged in a massive collective immuno-suppression of the entire population.
The purpose of graphics like these is NOT to inform.
It's to elicit an emotion.
With all of these factors going on,
how can you be sure that "excess deaths"
are caused simply by "the virus"?
"Very good points here. But... I dunno man... I know some people who got the virus. It's really, REALLY nasty!
And I even know a few people who died!
I'm sure the factors you just described are having a deleterious affect... But are you sure they're ENOUGH to cause so much damage?"
There's still one more major piece of this puzzle:
12. Collective Conversion Disorder
This is a phenomenon in which anxiety is converted into physical symptoms. Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
Conversion disorder (CD), or functional neurologic symptom disorder, is a diagnostic category used in some psychiatric classification systems. It is sometimes applied to patients who present with neurological symptoms, such as numbness, blindness, paralysis, or fits, which are not consistent with a well-established organic cause, which cause significant distress, and can be traced back to a psychological trigger. It is thought that these symptoms arise in response to stressful situations affecting a patient's mental health or an ongoing mental health condition such as depression.
"What?? Are you saying that all this sickness is "all in people's heads"? That's insulting! These symotoms are definitely real!"
And so is conversion disorder. It's real. The symptoms from it are real. This is more than just saying "it's all in your mind."
It starts in the mind, but it produces real, actual symptoms in the body.
And there is a social component to it. It tends to really "take off" when there is a group involved. It spreads among a population - just like a virus.
History is littered with examples of psychosomatic illnesses, with no organic cause, spreading among populations, due entirely to mass-psychology. If one person starts believing themselves to be ill, and they can convince one or two others, then an entire community can start believing in the illness, and falling ill themselves.
One of the most famous examples happened only a few years ago, in 2016. Do you remember hearing about the mystery illness at the U.S. Embassy in Havana Cuba?
At first, they thought it was something in the water. That was ruled out.
Next, they thought it might be a sonic weapon. Then an electromagnetic weapon. Then some super-secret Dr. Evil weapon that the Cubans had developed in secret... you know... with spare parts from their 1953 Chevy's.
The nerds and scientists were brought in to analyze the situation. And one by one, all of these causes were ruled out.
Eventually, they realized that it was mass-conversion disorder. It was psychosomatic. It started in their heads - and then their heads created it in their bodies.
This article, from Vanity Fair (not a "conspiracy theory" site) explains it very well:
Here's a link to the article.
Typically, mass-conversion disorder only affects "small, tightly-knit" groups with "high amounts of stress."
However, if you look at the current COVID19 lockdown situation, many of the conditions that define small groups are being fulfilled - even on the scale of the entire globe.
Think about it. Most people are stuck in their houses, glued to their televisions, shivering in fear, all day long. They're socially isolated. They're not seeing their friends. The television has taken on the role of their social circle. The only people they're interacting with are the corporate talking-heads at MSNBC, CNN, CBS, BBC, CBC, and so forth. The pundits have become their social circle. And the few people they interact with in real life (those in their household) are every bit as terrified, and every bit as credulous, as they are.
The phrase "global village" has been used for quite a long time. It refers to the level of interdependence of today's world. And that includes information interdependence. We have become one global community, and this effect has been magnified 100-fold by the coronavirus situation.
And as a result, mass-conversion disorder may be able to take shape and spread among the global community, as if it were a "community" - because it is one.
This theory is supported by the fact that all of the "big outbreaks" are occurring in the big urban centers. Indeed, you'd expect more transmission in a big city, because people are closer together. But this only explains higher infections - not higher rates of fatality from those infections. If there's more transmission, more people get infected - but this would not explain the higher rates of severe and life-threatening symptomology.
There are only two things that can explain that. One is 5G, and the other is the fact that people in big city environments are much more marinated in mass-media than anyone else.
If you live in the countryside or the suburbs, you get to escape from MSNBC when you turn your TV off. But if you live in Manhattan, there are literally TVs on buildings. You can't get away from it. So if you live in that environment, you're constantly being bombarded by the panic-porn. Therefore, you're more susceptible to media-induced mass-psychoses - including collective conversion disorder.
Another thing intense anxiety does is interfere with breathing.
And what is the main symptom of the bug that most people are talking about?
"Aha! Trouble breathing is one of the main symptoms! Maybe... Maybe it's coming from anxiety?"
The media is pumping the population full of the very emotion...
...which both suppresses the immune system
AND causes breathing problems...
...WHILE forcing everyone to wear muzzles that interfere with the breathing process...
...in the midst of an alleged pandemic whose most dreaded symptom is difficulty breathing.
Do you see what's going on here?
They're creating an environment in which it's difficult to breathe - both physically (the mask), and mentally (the anxiety) - even if you don't have a virus.
Even if you don't have an infection, you could still easily find yourself experiencing difficulty breathing.
And if that does happen... what happens next?
You'd immediately wonder if you had "the virus."
Which would skyrocket that fear to a whole new level.
And if you were already having trouble breathing, the extra fear would exacerbate that.
Which would then convince you you had the virus, for certain.
Which might then make you pass out from fear.
All without even having the virus.
Then, once you're passed out, they'd take you to the hospital - a building utterly saturated with fear - making sure that you're never going to relax and get your natural breathing pattern back, as long as you're there.
Next, they'll put you on a ventilator - which, as we already explained, is enough to kill a person all by itself, even without a virus.
What was just described is a feedback loop.
And it sounds a lot like a phenomenon called collective conversion disorder.
The symptoms are real - but the cause is mostly internal.
How's this for a theory:
Covid19 is a syndrome, not a virus.
And the syndrome consists of a synergy between a common cold virus and a collective psychological conversion disorder induced by mass media propaganda.
Most of the symptoms and fatalities that have been reported, most of the tallies, have been statisticially manipulated to inflate the fear. They're way too high.
Thre is a little bit of extra sickness going around - but not nearly as much as the media make sit out to be with their outlier hyperfocus.
There's still a little bit - but even that little bit comes mostly from the psychological syndrome induced by the media, and not organically from the virus itself.
What is the virus? It's a bad, but fairly normal, common cold. Every year, new colds emerge. Every year, many of them. Every year, many new cold viruses emerge. That's why we keep getting them.
Their virulence varies. Some are worse than others. Every now and then one goes around that's particularly nasty. These are the times you hear that lots of people in the office are calling in sick, lots of kids are absent from school - and a higher than normal number of people are getting a higher than normal degree of sick . We've all been through these episodes. We remember them. They've happened many times in our lives, already. But no one made a big deal about them until the media got involved this year, and crafted a coherent psychological syndrome out of one of these bugs.
Had they done this with any of those other bugs they could have crated the same collective psychosis, complete with conversion induced phsyical symptomology, as they did this year. The only difference between this one and all the other ones that we've already seen throughout our lives, is that for this one they decided to create a campaign about it in mass consicousnes, through the collusion of sensationalistic meida and government policies that exacerbate the problem for the media to feed on.
They've created a feedback loop between mass media, government policy, and public sickness, wherein each component feeds on the other two. The lockdowns and other restrictive mandates choke society and create sickness, which then gives the governments further pretext to extend and tighten the restrictions - leading to more sickness - which the media then grabs onto and magnifies, rationalizing the government to tighten the restrictions even further, leading to yet more sickness - and on and on it goes.
"Well this is all very interesting. It seems you have some very good points here.
Obviously the lockdowns do come with costs... and they do hurt people... and they maybe even kill people... but the amount of lives they SAVE (by slowing the transmission of the virus) is GREATER THAN the damage they do. We know this, because the SCIENTISTS say so!"
These "scientists" suffer from a fundamentally un-balanced way of thinking, and this coronavirus situation has brought it into focus like never before. They are very skillful at memorizing data and following rulebooks, but they have no idea how to synthesize information and look at the "big picture."
They specialize in one narrow field, and make all of their recommendations based on the conclusions of that one field, without taking any input from any other fields into account. They don't know (or care) how their policies affect the rest of society's systems.
They are stuck in their left-brain-hemispheres, and disconnected from their right-brain-hemispheres - unable to think non-linearly.
If you're looking at this situation purely from the perspective of an epidemiologist, then the most logical course of action would be to have complete martial-law, with troops in the streets and no one allowed out of their homes for any reason, forever. As long as germs exist, no human being should have contact with another human being.
Since most epidemiologists have at least some awareness of realty beyond their field, very few would suggest such a regime in its entirety - yet many have come uncomfortably close.
And the result is that they have essentially initiated a non-consensual chemotherapy on the entire world.
In chemotherapy, the goal is to kill everything - including the patient - but hope that the cancer cells die just a little bit faster. If everything goes well, they can abort the treatment while the patient is still only partially killed.
And is that not what the medical bureaucrats have enacted upon the planet in 2020?
Lockdowns destroy society, and the human spirit, and all systems of the body - including the immune system. They create mass-trauma and hysteria, which throws the body and mind out of balance, leaving us less healthy and more vulnerable to disease..
Lockdowns are meant to destroy society and everything in it - while hoping that the virus gets destroyed a little bit faster.
Chemo is bad enough when it's consensual. But now they're imposing it upon all of us - by force.
And forced medical treatment is a violation of both the Nuremberg Protocols (the standards under which captured Nazi officials were put on trial) and the Geneva Convention.
These people are sick. And they have to be stopped.
They're like drunks with car keys. We have to take the keys away from them, before they destroy everything and everyone.
The Correct Response
(not a fake one)
"I've taken note of all of the emotional and statistical tricks and shenanigans that our governments and media have been using to pump up the fear around this virus. I'm open to the idea that it's not nearly as "dangerous" as they've been telling us.
But what should we do if a *real* pandemic shows up? Like... in the future? What actually *is* the right way to respond to a pandemic - like, a real one?"
A mature civilization has contingency plans for major situations. And we should have one for biological situations.
We should be prepared, and have a plan to respond. Sanely.
Without muzzling people and locking us all in our houses.
Believing that the answer to any health question is for "authority figures" to control every person and every space at all times, is not only monstrous, but completely ineffectual, and illustrates the failure of the technocratic paradigm.
The proper response to a pandemic is health.
The Earth Party's
Pandemic Contingency Response Plan
Resolve to follow LOGIC - not emotion.
Emotional responses are not useful in these situations. In fact, they're dangerous. More dangerous even than the initial crisis itself.
In any difficult situation, not least this one, we get into trouble when we base our responses on emotion. Panic always leads to trouble. It doesn't solve the problem. It causes chaos. It may make things even worse. No matter what the crisis is - whether it's economic, geopolitical, or biological - leading with emotions is not helpful.
We can (and should) be learning from our past. There have been previous instances, where countries have fallen into emotional panic as a result of a crisis, and the panic causes far more damage than the crisis itself.
One example of this is 9/11. Remember that?
We don't want to act hysterically the way we did then, again.
If anyone tries to silence debate, or shame anyone for trying to calmly and rationally approach the situation, and tries to spread emotional hysteria to bypass all logic, then we need to confront that person, and expose what they're doing.
DO NOT allow them to control the debate.
Choose the correct paradigm of medicine.
Teach the public how the immune system works.
Provide proper nutrition to those without access
Teach meditation and self-healing
Our society, by and large, does not know how to meditate. Most people are walking around completely unaware of the energies within their own bodies.
Our bodies are not only the physical ones we can see and touch. We also have energy bodies, overlapping with our physical ones. And most - perhaps all - diseases originate from disruptions of the energy body. They show up there first, and then manifest into the physical one.
Meditation reestablishes awareness of our energy bodies. With this awareness, we can unblock blockages, and make ourselves whole again, spiritually and psychologically. This is essential for the treatment of any disease - not just the one supposedly going around now.
Furthermore, meditation also involves awareness of the breath. Most of us are chest-breathers, with no idea how to breathe from our bellies - the natural way. And what's the main way in which the current pathogen causes death? By interrupting breathing.
If there was ever a time to make sure the population understands pranayama, it's during a "pandemic.".
If the presidents and the governors and the doctors and the WHO and the CDC and all of these experts want to help people, they should get on TV and teach meditation and pranayama. They could have 30-60 minute sessions, on the major networks, dedicated to guided pranayama meditations and yoga.
The benefits of this would cascade beyond simply preparing people for potential breathing problems as a result of COVID. It would improve our health in myriad ways, including our psychological health, and our society would be transformed for the better, for the long term.
Mitigate unnecessary sources of stress
Restore natural social units with multiple layers of self-sufficiency.
Other helpful things:
-Provide voluntary centers of self-quarantine for people who believe themselves to be extra-vulnerable (perhaps due to immuno-suppression), and allow them to "wait it out" there, with all food and basic supplies provided to them, free of charge, by the government, for the duration of the pandemic. Each city can rent out a large hotel building for this purpose.
-Provide delivery of food and basic supplies to the homes of the vulnerable who choose to stay in their own homes, so they don't need to venture out.
-Prosecute executives at tech companies who censor information relating to health (or any info, really).
Notice what's not on the list?
-Arresting people for normal activities
-24/7 fear-porn "news reports" of real-time carnage numbers
Because these things don't work. They're not scientific. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that lockdowns are beneficial whatsoever.
We can obviously surmise that lockdowns slow transmission of pathogens, yes - but we cannot surmise that that transmission decrease is worth the overall reduction in health that comes from completely shutting down society.
We know paranoia decreases transmission - but it also decreases health. Including immune health - which is... kinda important, if you're actually in a pandemic, right?
Is there any evidence that the benefits of the former eclipse the drawbacks of the latter?
No. There is no such evidence. Such draconian experiments have never been done before in the entire history of humanity.
Thus, there is zero scientific study on them, and zero scientific evidence to support them.
Yet our governments did them anyway.
Because this isn't about a virus.
It's about something else.
Continue to Part 2:
Narrative Component H:
"But I keep seeing Twitter tweets by people who lost friends/family to the virus."
Twitter has an algorithm that determines which tweets you see. It can easily be programmed to elevate tweets with certain "keywords" to the top, so that you see them.
Let's look at numbers.
There are 68 million Americans on Twitter.
That's about 1/5 of the U.S. population.
As of April 2nd, there have been about 4500 deaths in the USA attributed to COVID.
Even if everyone on Twitter who knows a COVID victim makes a tweet about their loss, that's still a very small number of tweets, in a pool of 68 million users.
What is the likelihood of that small number making it constantly to the top of everyone's feed, every day, just by chance, by a fair and un-biased algorithm?
It's far more likely that Twitter has modified its algorithm to elevate tweets that mention "COVID" and "loss" or "died" in the same tweet.
And it's also very likely that if you asked them about this, they'd say "Yes, that's exactly what we're doing", and use the excuse of "we need to, in order to showcase the severity of what's going on." They do this kind of stuff openly, counting on the public to fail to connect the dots.