Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

  [46] - https://archive.is/CRMyN

  [47] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

  [48] - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/pdfs/ukpga_20200007_en.pdf

  [49] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200324102359/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/emergency-coronavirus-legislation-clears-commons-lockdown-measures-a4395476.html

  [50] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201207134626/https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

  [51] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200331092221/https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-similarities-and-differences-covid-19-and-influenza

  [52] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200503120222/https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/covid-19

  [53] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101125647/https://cvpandemicinvestigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ACDP_-COVID-19_M02-1.pdf

  [54] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200324120346/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/23/boris-johnsons-address-to-the-nation-in-full

  [55] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

  [56] - https://archive.is/X1ae2

  Chapter 3 - Who Cares About The Risk

  For any jury to be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal is guilty the evidence must convince them that the accused had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime. As we continue to explore the principle mechanisms which facilitated the pseudopandemic we need to consider if the core conspirators had the opportunity.

  Hitherto we have used the term "State" to refer to a public private partnership. It is a partnership between government, non governmental organisations (NGO's), philanthropists and their foundations, private corporations (including the mainstream media - MSM), think-tanks and intergovernmental organisations.

  Private interests dominate this State. The State makes use of academic and scientific institutions, government agencies and departments, civic institutions and nominally public services, to serve those private interests.

  Seen in this way, the State is essentially a method for transferring wealth from the people, via taxation and debt, to the group within which the core conspirators reside. This relationship provides them with the means of population and behaviour control. The core conspirators could exercise authoritarian control over the State using compartmentalisation and strategically situated influencers.

  The pseudopandemic can be described as the manufactured response to an engineered world-wide health crisis to justify a global paradigm shift [1]. The pseudopandemic was a public relations stunt. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by COVID 19.

  We'll look at motive later, but the core conspirators needed to create social, economic and political upheaval: the disruptive innovation described by the UNDP. The chaos the pseudopandemic response caused is just beginning to unfold, but its ultimate purpose was to establish the conditions for a global, technocratic coup d'état.

  The pseudopandemic was the deceptive manipulation of the truth about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID 19. This was achieved through the obfuscation of science, the weaponisation of policy, falsification of statistics, propaganda, disinformation and censorship.

  This does not imply that there was no threat from COVID 19. Many people have died as a result of the pseudopandemic. This included some who died from COVID 19. The fraud was predicated upon very real human suffering. However, we must not allow our grief to stop us asking questions.

  The allegation that doing so shows a callous disregard for the dead is a tired and abominable tactic to censor inquiry. It is tantamount to claiming that investigating murder is disrespectful to the victim. We would be wise to consider that it is the murderer who stands to gain most from such emotional blackmail.

  There is doubt about the claimed origin of SARS-CoV-2. For example, Waste Water based Epidemiology [2] (WBE) suggests that it was present long before the announced outbreak in Wuhan. Others are convinced it was a man-made virus, deliberately released: the so called "Wuhan Flu."

  Regardless of its origin, COVID 19 did not, in any rational sense, constitute a pandemic. For the WHO to claim it did, they had to apply an extremely tenuous definition. Their previously changed parameters enabled them to subsequently declare the COVID 19 pandemic.

  COVID 19 presented the core conspirators with their opportunity but they would not have been able to capitalise upon it unless they controlled the State. The State was essential to steer the COVID 19 narrative to create the illusion of a pandemic. The deception manufactured the core conspirators' global coup d'état opportunity.

  This concept will be impossible for many to accept. Cognitive dissonance [3] means that even the most well-read among us are unable to contemplate that the State is anything other than our attentive carer.

  The Royal College of Surgeons of England [4] (RCSE) revealed how lockdown policies (non-pharmaceutical interventions - NPIs) led to soaring waiting times for National Health Service (NHS) treatment. With nearly 4.5 million people waiting for appointments, the health impact of NPIs (lockdowns) is already acknowledged [5] to be worse than any resulting from COVID 19.

  Yet Professor Neil Mortensen, President of the RCSE said:

  “...These waiting time figures drive home the devastating impact COVID has had on wider NHS services."

  COVID 19 did not have a devastating impact on the UK’s NHS (or health services in any other developed nation). It was the policy decision to reorientate health services to treat nothing but COVID 19 which subsequently led them to fail.

  In the UK, mirroring the situation in the US and elsewhere, health services have not been overwhelmed or even close to it. During the initial outbreak in the spring of 2020, UK claimed mortality peaked on the 8th of April. In an article published on the 13th April the Health Service Journal reported record low bed occupancy rates [6].

  During the so called second wave in the autumn and winter of 2020, politicians continue to make unsubstantiated claims [7] about NHS COVID 19 pressures. NHS winter pressures are real enough, but there is no evidence COVID 19 exacerbated them. Policy and regulatory responses to the pseudopandemic certainly did.

  Alleged UK COVID 19 hospital admissions reached their second wave high point of 1,956 on the 11th November 2020. We can describe them as "alleged" because diagnosis of the disease was flawed. Nonetheless, they were declining until the vaccine roll out when, unusually for a respiratory disease, they suddenly started climbing rapidly again to reach a 2021 winter peak of 4,478 on the 12th January 2021. England alone had nearly 95,000 general and acute beds. The NHS reported [8]:

  "Hospital capacity has had to be organised in new ways as a result of the pandemic.......In general hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case."

  This was the first pandemic in history characterised by fewer people going to hospital and a reduction in healthcare capacity. Nonetheless, at its worse, there was never any reason to suspect the NHS was likely to be overwhelmed. Yet, based upon little more than hearsay and speculation, the MSM continuously deceived the public and gave that impression [9].

  Some of the COVID 19 propaganda the MSM engaged in was obscene. They considered this necessary because the vast majority of people had no first-hand evidence of any pandemic.

  Their beliefs about the pseudopandemic were not formed by experience but rather by the MSM. Absent the 24 hour news cycle and State lockdowns, most of us would have had no idea, or reason to suspect, that a global pandemic was supposedly underway.

  For example, in April 2020 the MSM reported, without evidence, that an additional 7,500 people [10] may have died from COVID 19 in care homes. In reality, health research analysis showed [11] that up to 80% of these people did not die from COVID 19.

  This indicated that large numbers of vulnerable people were dying in care homes of something other than COVID 19. Not a single MSM outlet reported this.

  The MSM was awash with stories [12] abo
ut NHS staff dying from COVID 19. The message was clear: the NHS was the front line in the war on an invisible enemy.

  It is uncomfortable to grasp how sick this disinformation was. The Health Service Journal [13] reported that, with millions of employees, NHS staff were statistically less likely to die from COVID 19 than the general public.

  The MSM used the deaths of these NHS workers as propaganda to prop up the core conspirators' pseudopandemic. At the same time, while generating unrelenting COVID 19 disinformation and fake news, the MSM, whose biggest advertising client was the government, worked in partnership [14] with the State to attack anyone [15] who questioned their pseudopandemic PR campaign.

  False epidemics and even pandemics are nothing new. In 2007 a whooping cough epidemic was declared at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire (US). Nearly 1000 staff were "tested." This resulted in 142 confirmed "cases" and hundreds of staff being furloughed, putting considerable staffing pressures on the Hospital. It later transpired that the whole thing was a false alarm [16]. Panicked staff and patients were probably suffering from nothing more than normal colds.

  The false alarm occurred because of the reliance upon highly sensitive molecular testing technology. Dr. Cathy A. Petti, infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, spoke at the time about the lessons learned:

  “The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives.....No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.”

  In 2007 Imperial College London (ICL) launched the MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling [17] (MRC). Their purpose was to be an international resource for the modelling of infectious disease outbreaks. With Professor Neil Ferguson, already a government scientific advisor [18], directing them, they held contracts to provide real-time disease outbreak analysis and modelling to the UK Department of Health, the World Health Organisation and the US Center for Disease Control.

  According to Professor Ferguson, in 2008 they received £10M from the BMGF to set up their Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium [19] (VIMC), which he also led. The BMGF have given approximately $300M to Imperial College [20] over the last decade or so. It is entirely reasonable to state that the BMGF funded the models used as the basis for declaring the global pseudopandemic.

  Imperial College's infectious disease modelling bears about as much semblance to reality as Mario-Kart. In 2002 they predicted 50,000 people in the UK would die of "mad cow's disease," less than 200 did; shortly after forming the MRC in 2007, they predicted up to 200 million deaths from H5N1 bird flu, this has resulted in an estimated 455 deaths globally and a year later they "modelled" 65,000 UK swine flu deaths. Less than 460 died.

  In 2009, advised by the BMGF funded MRC [21], the WHO declared H1N1 influenza a global pandemic. As usual, Imperial College predicted millions would perish, though the eventual total was 18,500 laboratory-confirmed deaths [22] globally.

  The WHO's 2009 pandemic claims weren't dissimilar to their declaration of the global pseudopandemic on March 11th 2020 [23]. Shortly before the 2009 announcement, the WHO changed the definition of "pandemic." The previous WHO definition [24] of an influenza pandemic read as follows:

  "An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears...resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness."

  This changed to [25]:

  "An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus emerges and spreads around the world, and most people do not have immunity."

  This was more in keeping with the Dictionary of Epidemiology [26] definition:

  "An epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries, and usually affecting a large number of people."

  It was notable that the WHO removed their reference to illness and mortality and added the concept of immunity. Every person who contracts a disease lacks immunity. If they were immune they wouldn't fall ill in the first place. When you get the flu you aren't immune to it. Claims that COVID 19 was unique because people weren't immune was claptrap.

  This equivocation from the WHO regarding immunity was notable. Why replace the meaningful measures of sickness and death with the far less tangible estimate of immunity? Initially this appeared to make no sense. Yet there was method in the WHO's apparent madness. If you define the problem as immunity then the solution to declared pandemics becomes vaccines.

  The WHO went to considerable lengths, including what appeared to be the deliberate sabotage of scientific investigations into potential COVID 19 treatments, to make sure vaccines were the only offered solution. The importance of vaccines to the pseudopandemic will become clear when we discuss the core conspirator’s motives.

  Under the WHO's new definition, every annual flu strain can be called a pandemic regardless of the presence (or absence) of any associated illness or mortality. A definition from the world's leading health experts that most people would regard as bizarre. Though it is very useful if you want to declare a pseudopandemic.

  The WHO say that they go through a number of processes (phases) before declaring a pandemic. This makes no material difference. Both the CDC in the US and the UK State have adopted the WHO's new, far more vague definition. The full extent of the UK State version [27] doesn't require anyone to be ill either:

  "[Pandemics] are the result of a new pathogen emerging and spreading around the world."

  When the WHO were investigated for falsely declaring the H1N1 pandemic by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [28] (PACE) they presented a strange defence. They claimed their definition of a pandemic was't really a definition [29] and had no bearing upon their six declaration phases. Yet they had plainly offered two distinct definitions.

  There is little doubt that the WHO falsely declared a pandemic in 2009. Their decisions were riven with significant conflicts of interest and the evidence that a genuine pandemic occurred doesn't exist. Had they maintained their previous definition, they could not have declared the H1N1 global pandemic. H1N1 would have been recorded for what it was. A fairly unremarkable flu season.

  When the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism [30] investigated they noted the collaboration between the WHO and the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI). The ESWI were almost entirely funded by the pharmaceutical corporations. Many of the WHO and ESWI scientific advisors were also employed, or funded by, the same pharmaceutical corporations. The WHO did not disclose these relationships when it declared its "pandemic."

  PACE launched their investigation because the H1N1 pandemic was indistinguishable from normal seasonal influenza [31]. Unconvinced by the WHO's denials, PACE issued a damning report [32], not only of the WHO, but also of so called competent health authorities at both the national and European level.

  Despite the WHO and their partners' refusal to disclose information to the PACE investigators, their report was comprehensive. They found a lack of transparency in decision making, habitual distortion of public health priorities, enormous waste and clear evidence of the undue influence of pharmaceutical corporations. PACE determined that this led to:

  "Unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large."

  Imperial College's MRC hasn't just been wrong. Its unrestrained inaccuracy has been remarkably reliable. It's BMGF funded models have never erred by underestimation and have consistently exaggerated the threat enormously. To reiterate, they are funded by a philanthropic foundation which profits, via its trust, from the sale of vaccines.

  Irrespective of what you make of this conflict of interest, experience and common sense should be enough to dissuade anyone from taking Imperial College' predictions seriously. Especially among government scientific advisors like the Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE) [33].

  They had ample opportunity to discuss these repeated errors with Neil Ferguson as he was a SAGE committee member at the
time. Though he had to resign after contravening the lockdown rules [34] his own predictive models allegedly justified. He was in good company.

  Dr Catherine Calderwood [35] (Scotland's Chief Medical Officer), resigned after driving to her children to the family holiday home during lockdown. Damian Cummings (then chief advisor to the UK Prime Minister), Robert Jenrick MP (Housing and Communities Minister), Stephen Kinnock (Shadow Minister for Asia and the Pacific and husband of former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt) and Tobias Ellwood [36] MP (Chair of the Defence Select Committee and a serving Officer in 77th Brigade - more on them later) were among the many influential people who were accused of breaking the lockdown rules they strongly advocated for everyone else.

  While this doesn't matter much, it does illustrate a point. The people who most emphatically stressed that COVID 19 was a dire health risk, especially Ferguson and Calderwood, those who supposedly had access to the best scientific evidence about the scale of the threat, didn't believe it was a risk them or their families.

  Given their pandemic track records, you might think someone in authority would have questioned the Imperial College's models or the WHO's opinion about what does or does not constitute a global pandemic. No one did.

  The scientists, medical professionals and independent journalists who questioned the pseudopandemic were ignored or attacked by the MSM and censored by the social media companies. Any who questioned the "official truth" were castigated as "conspiracy theorists" or COVID-idiots.

  For the core conspirators, their control of global health authorities meant the pseudopandemic progressed smoothly. The UK State, along with the rest, doffed their caps, believed everything Imperial College and the WHO told them, asked no questions, and set about destroying their own nation and the people who lived in it.

  Sources:

  [1] - https://archive.is/X6GIs

  [2] - https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/wastewater-wastes-official-covid-19-narrative