top of page

Covid: "But It's Obvious There's a Pandemic! It's All Over the News!"

Note: For the complete "Table of Contents" of objections to the pandemic being a psyop (psychological operation) following the shock-doctrine playbook, and a full explanation of how and why it was deployed, and what its architects are seeking from it, and how to defeat them, visit our main page on covid.

Objection #1:

"But it's obvious that there's a pandemic.

It's all over the news!

Every day! Every night!

It's scary!

How can it not be real?"


The media has a wide range of discretion in what they can choose to report, or to not report. If they choose to focus on something, they can create a perception that that thing is far more common than it really is.

This is a phenomenon called outlier hyperfocus. By reporting on outliers (rare events), and hyper-focusing attention on those outliers, they can make you think that the outliers are the norm. Or in this case... the "new norm."

"OK but overwhelmed hospitals are definitely new. I don't remember this happening ever before."

Are you sure? During the 2018 flu season, California hospitals were so overwhelmed, they ran out of beds, and had to treat patients in tents in the parking lot.

But you probably didn't notice this, because the media didn't make a big deal out of it. They reported it, on page 20 of the newspapers, and didn't hyper-focus on it.

The truth is, hospital-overcrowding is an annual occurrence, and you can always find a handful of hospitals that are overwhelmed.

In any year, on any day, a handful of hospitals will be overwhelmed. That is NORMAL.

There does not need to be a "novel virus" or a "pandemic" in order for some hospitals, in a few places, to be overwhelmed. And if you go searching for them, you can always find a few.

The only difference between 2020 and previous years was that in 2020, the media decided to cover that tiny number of overwhelmed hospitals, and broadcast the footage on every channel, all day long, in a highly emotional and sensationalistic way.

That's the only difference.

"OK I see what you're saying. And it would make sense, except that my friend/relative is a doctor/nurse, and he/she actually works in a hospital, and says that it's overcrowded, and there are more sick people in 2020/2021 than in previous years. He/she works directly on the front lines, and reports this. There's obviously something going around, or else why all the extra sickness?"

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! Piling up!"

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. ​ Yep. 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? "No." 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. ​ In 2018.

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!" Are they? 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: ​ FILM YOUR HOSPITAL- advent health and Halifax health daytona beach FLNew York City Man does his own checks asks questions ?? Should You Film Your Hospital? 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? ​

"So is there not a new virus at all?"


There are lots of new viruses. All the time.

Everyone has a virome - an entire ecosystem of viruses - in their body. At all times, everyone is walking around with trillions of virions, from hundreds of species of viruses. They perform vital functions and are innately connected to our health. Just like gut bacteria, the virome is a branch of the microbiome, and we wouldn't even be able to survive without it. It's part of us.

Having a virus does not equal getting sick.

The difference is in the numbers. Thte viral load. A virus only makes you sick if its number get out of control.

You have an immune ssytem that stopis that from happening. Only if the immune system fails does a virus multiply out of control, and onl then does sickness occur.

Everyone has colds and flus at all times. You're constantly picking them up But since you have an immune system, it keeps them in check. The load stays low.

So the question "Is there a virus?" or "Is the virus real?" is the wrong question. Of course there's a virus. There are thousands of them. Hundreds of species in each and every person at any given time.

"Ok smartass. Is there a NEW virus? One we HAVEN'T had before?"

There are always new viruses. Viruses mutate and evolve. That's what they do. Every year, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of new viruses. That's why colds and influenzas keep coming back every year. Their virulence varies. Some are worse than others. Every now and then one goes around that's particularly nasty. This is not a new phenomenon. There have been many times when you've heard 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 before. 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 them. And by the WHO's broad definition of a "pandemic," each and every one of these viruses is a pandemic. They're new, and they spread around the world quickly. That's the only thing required to meet the WHO's definition. Severity is not necessary. Deadliness is not necessary. Just virulence (rate of spread). That's it. So technically, by their own definition, we have dozens/hundreds of new pandemics every year. But they're not telling you that their definition is funky, are they? After all, what would be the point of creating a deceptive definition if you then go around telling everyone it's deceptive? By the WHO's definition, we have dozens/hundreds of pandemics every year, but the difference between those ones and this one, is that none of those viruses had a marketing campaign. None of them had 24/7 media coverage. None of them had "case numbers" and "death tallies" broadcast on TV every day and night, like stats from an ongoing war. None of them had that. Had the media done this with any of those other bugs, they could have created the same collective psychosis. ---

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.

if having a virus means it contributed, then there are hundreds of viruses contributing, and hundreds of pandemics happening at once, because there are hundreds of viruses that are currently in millions of people EACH, and various combinations of them are in every single person who dies, anywhere, of any cause. If we count any virus present as a contributing factor - even if the person wasn't even sick from it, and it played no obvious role in their outcome, then hundreds of viruses satisfy these criteria at any given time.

They're not getting sick from it because they're missing the psychological component. They simply are not exposed to mass-media the way westerners and people in the "modern" world are. African slums don't have giant flat-screen TV's on the sides of buildings telling them they're supposed to get sick. Meanwhile, homeless people in the modern world do have exposure to the media, but they have an astounding abiltiy to ignore it and tune it out - hence one of the reasons why our culture has ostracized them and made them homeless. They're not in the same mass-collective cultural identity that the rest of us are. And therefore, that identity can't make them sick when it gets sick.

They aren't saturated by media. In a nutshell, they don't know they're supposed to be sick.

This also explains why New York was the hardest hit place in the USA. It's because it's the media-capital. New York, London, and California are the epicenters of the modern mass-media, and they just happened to be the three areas with the most covid carnage in the world. People in these areas are plugged more deeply into the media matrix than anyone else. The cultural identity has taken hold in them more deeply, and influences them more directly, than people elsewhere. And if that identity says you're supposed to be sick, the message resonates loudest for them, because they're standing the closest to the speakers.

And that, in a nutshell, is how the scamdemic perpetuates.

The pertinent question now is:


28 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page