Part 3: Emotional Manipulation
Note: This page deals with the emotional manipulation of the population by the media.
If you're looking for the statistical manipulation of the COVID19 numbers, please see Part 2: Cooking the Numbers
If you get your "news" from big corporations, either by watching a lot of television, or consuming TV media's corresponding Youtube channels, then you might be shaking and shivering on your couch, obsessively repeating in your mind phrases like:
"The hospitals are overwhelmed!"
"Doctors and nurses are exhausted!"
"People are dying everywhere!"
"Body-bags are piling up!"
Please, folks, you have to get wise to how the media operates. Their whole job is to manipulate your emotions.
Are people dying out there? Of course. But that does not mean there's a "pandemic."
Hospitals always have sick people, and people have been dying in hospitals every day, of every year, for centuries. Stress and chaos have always flourished within their walls.
The pertinent question is how many, and how often.
It's a matter of proportion.
This is what determines whether there's a "pandemic", an "emergency", a "crisis", and so on.
And as we saw in Part 2: Cooking the Numbers, the numbers are not at pandemic levels.
"But I saw the footage! Hospitals are overwhelmed! Doctors are breaking down and crying! People are dying! Are you saying the footage is fake?"
It doesn't need to be fake in order to be misleading.
This principle is called outlier hyperfocus.
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.
But that doesn't matter. All that matters is crafting the narrative.
Did some people already have latent psychological problems, which drug-use triggered? Sure.
But these are a tiny minority.
And it doesn't matter how tiny that minority is! 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.
A responsible citizen does not allow
themselves to be fooled by this.
And if ever there were a time
to be responsible citizens,
And now we come to the COVID19 mass-hysteria.
Let's go through the components of the narrative, one by one, and expose their distortions:
Narrative Component A:
"Hospitals in the USA and everywhere are overwhelmed with a gigantic flood of patients! There has to be a pandemic, if the hospitals are this inundated with patients!"
There are three problems with this narrative.
First of all, if hospitals are flooded, this can be attributed to the media - not to a virus.
The media is scaring everyone shitless, to the point that every person with a temperature or a cough is heading directly to the hospital.
Of course this is overwhelming the hospitals.
The mass-panic going on right now would be enough to overwhelm hospitals, even in a normal year, even if there were no special new virus.
What do you think would happen even in a normal year if EVERYONE WITH A TEMPERATURE headed straight to the hospital?
They'd be overwhelmed.
You don't need a novel pandemic for that to happen. All you need is a media scaring the shit out of everyone.
Secondly, "overwhelmed hospitals" is not a new thing. It happens. Just a couple of years ago, hospitals were overwhelmed from the seasonal flu.
Notice the year. 2018.
This begs the question: If we weren't going crazy about overwhelmed hospitals in any other year, why did we suddenly start this year?
If hospitals treating patients in tents was not "news" last year, why does it suddenly become news this year?
Why does it suddenly become a "justification" for the most massive expansion of fascistic government powers since 9/11?
(Don't worry - these questions will be answered as you read on)
Most hospitals are not even flooded.
In fact, very few of them, it seems.
The hashtag #FilmYourHospital has been trending. In it, citizen journalists venture to 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 ??
"But I also 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?
Perhaps that was exactly the problem!
Former US Naval Intelligence Officer John Jordan says "hospitals aren't being overrun" in direct contravention to what US experts were saying and projected numbers of sick people "just aren't materialising".
"A lot of these hospital expansions and field hospitals are empty," he said. "They've turned convention centres into field hospitals and there are no patients in there; the US Navy hospital ships only have a few patients on board."
Narrative Component B:
"I saw footage of patients laying in beds with tubes in their mouths!"
Remember, all it takes to make a "story" is a few people.
And they don't even need a "novel virus" in order to do this. They could do this with flu patients, in a normal year, if they were motivated to do so. Flu patients often require intubations.
Narrative Component C:
"People have died!"
People die of respiratory ailments every year. Including from the flu.
In a normal year, the media *could* (if they wanted to) go into hospitals, film flu patients dying, (because 0.1% of flu patients do die) and use the footage to scare the shit out of you. They could even seek out the handful of "young, otherwise healthy patients" (the statistical outliers) who are having complications (like pneumonia) from the flu, (because they do exist) and then use that to make everyone think that ALL young, healthy people are in "imminent mortal danger."
They can do this even in a normal year. It does not require the presence of a novel monster-plague!
And is this a monster plague? To answer that question, we have to look at actual numbers. Actual data.
Narrative Component D:
"Doctors and nurses are dying!"
Every year, doctors and nurses die. They work with people who have various infections, and sometimes they catch those infections themselves, and sometimes they die. This happens every year. The difference is, it never used to be filmed. It didn't get splashed all over the news.
When it's splashed all over the news, outlier hyperfocus makes you think that it's a "new thing."
Remember, all it takes is a few... and the media can work with it, to blow it up like a balloon, and make you think it's happening to "everyone, everywhere."
Narrative Component E:
Bodybags Piling Up
"But there are bodybags piling up! There are so many bodies, they don't have anywhere to put them all!"
The reason the bodies are "piling up" is not because there are "more" of them - it's because the protocols for disposing of them 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.
Narrative Component F:
"I saw on the news they're digging mass graves!
MASS FUCKING GRAVES!!!!!!!!!"
Who is this "they"?
It's actually one city - New York - and the phenomenon is not new - it's 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 more importantly, 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?
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.
Narrative Component I:
So-And-So Died From It
"Celebrity XYZ got it! My friend got it! My friend's friend died from it! My friend's friend's grandma died from it!"
In the 2018 flu season, 45 million cases of the flu were reported in the United States.
Of those 45 million cases, 810,000 resulted in hospitalizations.
Of those, 61,000 died.
All three of those figures are a lot of people. All three are bigger than the coronavirus statistics at the time of this writing.
45 million flu cases is 1 out of every 7 Americans. This means that everyone knows someone who got infected (with the flu).
It also means that everyone also knows someone who got hospitalized. (Although you might not know that they got hospitalized, since proclaiming this kind of information to the world was not the "trending" thing to do at the time).
And finally, it means that there's a fairly decent chance that you know someone who died from it. At the very least, you definitely know someone who knows someone (2 degrees of separation) who died from it.
Remember, this is the flu we're talking about.
The lesson: Just because you "know someone who was affected", does not mean that there is a world-ending pandemic going around. (Unless you also consider flu-season to be a world-ending pandemic).
The difference is simply the fact that this year's novel virus is trendy to talk about. In previous years, people were not going around telling their friends, and friends' friends, who got sick, or who died. We were not sharing "who's who" lists of victims of the flu, despite the flu killing such a large number of people.
Narrative Component J:
or "Altitude Sickness"
"Doctors are reporting that people are suffering from a weird and totally unfamiliar form of respiratory problem. They're saying it's NOT viral pneumonia. The lungs are not filling with fluid. It's more like they have "altitude sickness", and simply can't get enough oxygen molecules! This means that the virus is a totally new, monstrous plague!"
This type of sickness is quite simply unrelated to any virus. Viruses do not cause that type of symptom. They can cause pneumonia - but they don't cause "altitude sickness."
The "altitude sickness" is coming from two non-viral sources:
1. 5G radiation
2. A mass psychosis known as mass-conversion disorder.
Let's address them one at a time.
The Potential Role
of Electromagnetic Pollution
Remember the outbreak in Italy? Remember how bad it was?
"Yes! It was awful! One of the worst-hit places in the world!"
Do you know where it took place? Which part of the country?
"Gee I don't know. Rome, I guess?"
Nope. Good guess though. Rome is the biggest city, and it's also where most of Italy's tourism is. You'd expect the outbreak to occur in the place where everyone's flying in from other countries. That would make sense.
But it wasn't Rome. It was the Piedmont region, all the way up north. Mainly the city of Milan.
That's a strange place to have an outbreak. Who even visits Milan, anyway?
The famed "Fashion Week" did take place in February - but it's still an extremely small gathering, compared to the daily tourist hordes arriving in Rome - the city with the #1 amount of tourism, by volume, in the entire world.
There is something special about Milan, however.
It's the center of Italy's 5G deployment.
How Vodafone Italy turned Milan into an extensive 5G testbed | TelecomTV
Meanwhile, Hubei Province, the center of China's outbreak, also has the most extensive 5G deployment in that country. It was China's first designated "5G Smart City."
New York City, the #1 outbreak spot in the USA, is also the city boasting the most advanced 5G deployment.
But that's obviously just a coincidence... right?
EMF radiation is known to interfere with bodily functions, including the immune system, and 5G is more dangerous than 3G and 4G by at least an order of magnitude. If people get sick, the radiation can interfere with their body's ability to fight off the infection.
With enough radiation, even a common cold could become life-threatening, if the body loses its ability to fight off infections due to interference by radiation.
"And what about the "altitude sickness" that's not caused by viruses?"
The 5G system operates in the 60GHz spectrum. 60 GHz is the frequency at which oxygen molecules oscillate.
Oxygen molecules have covalent bonds - meaning they have electrons that they share with each other. What we breathe are two oxygen molecules bonded together with the electrons that they share.
60 GHz radiation alters the orbital properties of the electrons of the oxygen molecules. When the oxygen molecule is hit with 60GHz 5G waves, these waves affect the orbital resonance properties of those shared electrons. And it's those shared electrons that bind to the hemoglobin in our blood.
When the oxygen is disrupted, it will no longer bind to the hemoglobin and myoglobin (oxygen carrying molecules) and therefore will not be able to carry oxygen to the cells throughout the body.
Thus, a feeling of "shortness of breath" - just like altitude sickness.
To learn more about the extreme dangers of 5G, read an appeal signed by thousands of scientists across the world.
Or see the Earth Party's page on it.
And finally we come to perhaps the most sinister component of all of this: the collective-conversion disorder.
The Potential Role of
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:
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.
"This is a fascinating theory. But it does seem like just that - a theory. Same goes with the 5G theory."
True. They are just theories.
But so is the theory that "there's a killer plague out there that's striking hundreds of thousands of people down, all on its own, with strange symptoms that have never been observed from any "virus" before."
That's just a theory too.
And it's not a particularly good one, especially given the clear statistical accounting tricks being employed to inflate the fatality numbers, which we explained in Part 2: Cooking the Numbers."
Do not trust the corporate media.
We must be skeptical of sources that are proven liars.
Right now, there is a debate going on through society. There are two sides.
One side says: "This situation is WAY WORSE than you think it is."
The other says: "It's NOT AS BAD as you think it is."
Which one to believe?
Well, the first one - the FEAR FEAR FEAR side - the corporate media - has been lying to us since we were born. They're the ones who lied about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, and about "Saddam working with Al-Qaeda." And you know they were lying, and not just "making mistakes", because when they were finally found out, what did they do? Did they fire the people who got it wrong? No. They fired the people who got it RIGHT. Phil Donahue was one of the only people in media who questioned the narrative, and MSNBC fired him. Ashley Banfield was another, and she was fired too.
And what about others, outside of the mainstream, who proved their smarts by getting it right? Do corporate news networks ever bring them on? Do they ever invite Medea Benjamin from Code Pink to come on their shows and explain the lies behind imperialism? Do they ever invite on ANYONE from the anti-war side? ANYONE who got it CORRECT? Nope.
Meanwhile, the loudest cheerleaders for war, who lied to us, year after year, faced no accountability whatsoever. Most of them got PROMOTIONS and PAY RAISES. They failed UP.
That proves that the corporate news networks not only lie, but they KNOW they lie, and it's the WHOLE POINT.
They've also been gaslighting us about Bernie Sanders for the past 5 years, gaslighting us about Medicare-for-All not being "affordable", gaslighting us about progressive political ideas, gaslighting us about Joe Biden not being a rapist (despite CAMERA FOOTAGE of him groping people) and not having dementia (despite CAMERA FOOTAGE of his brain melting mid-sentence), and gaslighting us about the DNC being "neutral" and not rigging the primaries. They have done nothing but gaslight us, for DECADES.
If you suddenly want to start trusting them now... just because there's a "new scary thing"... well... that's your prerogative. But if you choose that path, you're choosing the path of emotion - not logic.
Listen to others, including those you disagree with.
Before we can formulate an exact response, we must be willing to evaluate information from multiple sources, and listen to all sides of a debate.
To be logical in our thinking, and to have confidence that the course we've identified as the most logical course is indeed the most logical - then we must be open to communication and discussion, including with people whose ideas are new and different from ours. Including people we think are wrong.
There is no harm in listening to those we think are wrong.
If they really are wrong, then their ideas can be defeated on grounds of logic. You can actually defeat a bad idea, by exposing the flaws in its reasoning. And if you do that, then it puts the question to rest, and people will no longer be wondering if that bad idea may have had merits to it after all (because you just debunked it with logic, for all to see). You have nothing to fear form bringing a bad idea out into the open. Exposure is what allows it to be conclusively debunked.
Consciousness and rational discourse are like sunlight. They disinfect minds from bad ideas.
And there's yet another reason to entertain "wrong" ideas, too. And it's the fact that they might actually be right - and you might be the one who's been wrong! Your ideas might have flaws, and if they do, don't you want them pointed out?
You have to listen to other people in order to notice the flaws in your ideas. Noticing the flaws in ones ideas is hard to do, and it requires a fairly sophisticated level of mindfulness. And thankfully there's a short cut: other peoples criticism. If someone is telling you that your ideas don't stand up in the light of rational scrutiny, it's fairly possible that they might have a point, and listening to them could do the job of ten years worth of meditation and introspection. You can easily find out what you've been wrong about all this time.
This is how intellectually honest people operate. And if there was ever a time for us to be intellectually honest, it's now.
Here's an example: Michael Levitt.
Michael is a Nobel laureate (2013) who is saying the pandemic is NOT going to be nearly as devastating as the media says.
We're not talking about a random schmuck with a Dunning-Kreuger complex, who thinks he's an expert just because he has a Facebook page! We're talking about a Nobel laureate.
This guy predicted the full trajectory of the virus in China. That includes:
-the total number of cases
-the timeline of those cases' development
-the point in time when it would "peak" (i.e. the "flattening of the curve")
-the total number of fatalities
He predicted all this for China, and he was accurate on that last subject (fatalities) to within 5 persons. That is incredible.
And when it comes to the USA, he's predicting far less doom and gloom than other so-called "experts."
And he's not the only one questioning the "official" numbers and predictions.
Here is Kim Iversen, a radio personality who has compiled lists of statistics that throw cold water on the "doom and gloom" fantasies you're hearing from the TV. She compiles her numbers from scientists (e.g. virologists, epidemiologists) at respected research institutions, from multiple countries (USA, Germany, China, Sweden), who are saying that this "virus" is vastly less deadly than we thought.
That video is from mid-March, and the numbers she cited have turned out to be accurate.
Here's one that's more up-to-date (April):
The experts she cites are doctors and scientists at leading institutions.
One of them is Dr. John Ioannidis, the co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center and professor of medicine, biomedical data science, statistics, and epidemiology and population health at Stanford University.
Not a schmuck with a Facebook page.
A STANFORD PROFESSOR.
Not only does he say that the mass-media's numbers are wrong, but that they're scandalous. He believes that, months from now, the biggest scandal in the world will be how the world's governments locked us in our houses, shut down the economy, and caused massive social unrest because of an unsupported model with horrible methodology. He calls it an "evidence fiasco." Have a listen:
Once again... Stanford Professor... not Facebook schmuck.
Just in case you needed one more reminder.
And here's another one. His name is Wolfgang Wodarg:
Not a Facebook schmuck.
The common thread among all of them is this:
The "doom and gloom" being peddled by governments and corporate media is all based on one study - one model - a computer model - conducted by one institution: The Imperial College of London.
The "millions of deaths" and the "we're all gonna die" crap is based on one study.
It's referred to as the "imperial model" (after the Imperial College).
And its methodology is horrendously flawed. We'll get into the how and the why further down this page, in Point #4.
And now that other scientists and researchers are putting out other models, the consensus is coalescing around the idea that we really, really, really, REALLY overreacted. This "virus" might be less of a threat than the flu.
And now, even the authors of the Imperial model admits he might have made a boo-boo:
Imperial College scientist who predicted 500K coronavirus deaths in UK adjusts figure to 20K or fewer
Looks like the scare-mongers might have gotten it wrong.
Do you have to believe us?
No. That's the point! Don't just "believe" people. Think about their words, and run them through the lens of rational scrutiny.
Don't automatically believe - but do listen. There is nothing that can harm you just be listening, as long as you evaluate their words logically before reaching your own conclusions.
Listen. Listen to a wide variety of viewpoints.
And the more you look at the situation objectively, the more the "official" story breaks down.
And perhaps the biggest smoking gun of all? The behavior of the "authorities." The people in charge of the data-collection, and the response.
Their behavior, from the very beginning of this crisis, has been mendacious, bizarre, and totally inconsistent with their professed goals of "fighting a virus."
Fauci. Birx. The CDc. The NIH. The NHS. The W.H.O.
Our official "trusted experts" are behaving in a manner that is wildly inconsistent with their very own stated goals.
If their motives were really about simply "keeping everybody healthy and safe", then they would not be doing the things they've been doing.
"What things are you talking about?"
We'll explain in the next part: