This publication is a subsection of a yet unreleased e-book. This work can be republished or reprinted as desired. Please share this publication as it helps grow the readership. If you would like to support this work, please contact: Modern.Montaigne.Publishing@gmail.com.
Because the web of deceptions and engineered delusions touch upon every aspect of the Coronavirus PSO, it is necessary to address the entanglement of deceptions which have engineered a quagmire of mendacity and engineered a surreal irrational quality to the cognition and perception of audiences over the course of the operation. This will require a brief exploration of the concepts of propaganda matrices and the Magical Thinking Technique (MTT).
One of the most effective techniques in contemporary psychological warfare operations is the use of matrices of deception or propaganda matrices (the term that will be used in this theoretical work) to entrap and guide the cognition of the targets of psychological warfare. This can be understood as a superstructure of deception which is metaphorically “built” by many discrete interlocking deceits and deceptions. These deceptions and manipulations are woven together to create a “cage of the mind” or psychological constraints which are remarkably rigid and engineers in the victim an intransigent world view which guides cognition and perception. Due to the realities of human psychology and neurophysiology, properly implemented propaganda matrices can nearly irreversibly bind the psychology of the propagandized who become immune to logic and objective realities which contradict the paradigms of the propaganda matrix. Because propaganda matrices are generally implemented en masse, their effects are almost invariably on a mass scale with profound wide-reaching effects. This is a critical technique for the engineering of mass deceptions, mass delusions, fantastical erroneous myths conducive to state power, the engineering of mass consent, and the engineering of a militant groupthink which can be steered as necessary towards desired endpoints.
For the purposes of this treatise, a matrix is the “grid-like” psychological schema of interlocking constituents consisting of information, data sets, observations, ideas, beliefs, opinions, etcetera, that form a psychological construct dealing with the interrelated parts. In this sense a matrix must be understood as an abstract concept although it does have a physical manifestation in the neural circuitry and neural architecture that is formed as a consequence of learning and the neural adaptations and connections that are built as a consequence.
Psychologically a matrix can be likened to an agglomeration of functions of calculus. The functions of calculus remain constant and process input to provide a mathematical output. While an imperfect analogy, this is generally true of cognitive functions with there being a predictable output (analysis, cognition, perception, and behavior) based on defined input (data, experiences, observations, etcetera). A psychological matrix in turn is composed of all the interrelated psychological “functions” which act in tandem to produce output. The psychological matrix determines and guides cognition and perception and is responsible for the general predictability of individual human cognition and behavior.
In general, naturally formed matrices are sturdy but reasonably malleable, with an entire matrix liable to change to varying degrees over time. Once an individual has reached adulthood, the great majority of matrices are relatively stable exhibiting only mild glacial shifts over time as new experiences are formed and new information is integrated into the schematic understanding of reality. These new additions generally function as modifications to the established matrix and tend to be small and incremental albeit advantageous modifications of the matrices which generally “perfect” the functioning of the matrices. These changes tend to be minor modifications and rarely take the form of full-blown revolutions of the matrix which require a radical reorganization of the schematic understanding of reality and reengineering of the paradigms of critical analysis.
A propaganda matrix is the engineering of a cognitive matrix in an artificial and contrived manner in order to control the cognition, perception, and behavior of target audiences (i.e. psychological and behavioral control). This is performed through mass communications and mass media which are strategically abused in order to “teach” audiences disinformation and inculcate them into paradigms of deception. With the continued exposure of audiences to psychological warfare (whose intended effect it is to hijack cognition and reshape the understanding of reality) audiences can be quite rapidly indoctrinated into propaganda matrices which often irreversibly bind their psychology and utterly control their cognitive processes. Because of the artistry with which this is performed, often those who fall victim to such propaganda matrices are unable to begin the necessary process of deprogramming and systematically removing the disinformation and deceptions of the propaganda matrix from their psychology.
It is necessary to differentiate normal cognitive functions and cognitive matrices from their malignant and artificial counterparts. Propaganda matrices take advantage of the full spectrum of psychological warfare sciences to inject and “cement” disinformation sets and foist malignant paradigms of deception into the psychology of audiences. Because of this, propaganda matrices tend to be far more severe in their rigidity, stronger in their binding to the psychology of the propagandized, and more all-encompassing in their effects on cognition, perception, and behavior.
The majority of cognitive matrices which form naturally and without undue influence are constructs which the individual does not have an emotional investment in nor do they self-identify with. As such under natural conditions individuals tend to only be emotionally invested in a few issues, the majority of which there is an objective reason for personal investment and a few which are of psychological importance to the individual.
Conversely, the deceptions involved in propaganda matrices and the constituent disinformation sets are almost always embedded using extreme emotional manipulation, egregious manipulations of logic, and are embedded in a manner in which the victim self-identifies with deceptions. This works to magnificently embed the deceptions and makes them resistant to logic and reevaluation. This has several consequences:
- The propaganda matrix has an exquisitely irrational and illogical quality which makes it highly resistant to logic and reason.
- The propaganda matrix provokes extreme emotional responses which are objectively illogical. This is a direct consequence of the manner in which the concepts were ingrained into the psychology of the target as psychological warfare amply employs emotional learning and emotive-intense learning processes. This in turn evokes strong emotions in individuals towards subject matter related to learned propaganda.
- The intertwining of the propaganda matrix with conceptions of the psychological self means that anything that challenges the propaganda matrix is subconsciously perceived as an “attack” on the psychological self. This in turn causes predictable hostilities and antipathy towards anything that challenges the embedded propaganda matrix as the individual attempts to protect the integrity of their psychological self.
These dynamics work to make the embedded deceptions immune to reason and resistant to reform. Indeed, in many propagandized individuals, there will be a general reasonable outlook and normal affective responses in most areas of conversation except for all things which touch upon propaganda matrices. In such cases, otherwise rational and emotionally-grounded individuals will exhibit sudden acute irrationality and hyper-emotional responses consequent to the activation of the embedded propaganda matrices.
Another issue of great importance is the sheer quantity of propaganda and psychological warfare that is produced for the engineering of even minor psychological warfare deceptions. In the contemporary setting, nearly all news outlets and mediums are functionally peddlers of propaganda and the total sum of mass communications and mass media are fully weaponized for psychological warfare purposes. This is critical to the understanding as the average person consuming mass media has been exposed to hundreds of hours of audiovisual propaganda and many thousands of discrete propaganda pieces and propaganda insertions. The nature of psychological functioning and neurophysiology is such that such massive exposure has profound and deeply rooted effects on the psychological functioning of the propagandized. The psychology of critical analysis can be roughly likened to a balance scale: if a person has been exposed to hundreds of hours of expertly crafted propaganda, this massive sum of propaganda exposure is weighed against a minimal exposure to truthful information and authentic individual experiences. A single hour of distilled concentrated truth will generally be futile in displacing a propaganda matrix whose construction was the result of thousands of hours of exposure to propaganda. Indeed, the most successful deprogramming requires radical measures in order to counteract the degree of effects such quantities of propaganda have on the psychology and psychological functioning.
Despite the fact that for the last 50 years it has been well-known that the role of “news” outlets is the generation of propaganda, this basic reality remains elusive to a great majority of international audiences. There remains the well-cultivated myth of the “veracity” of “news” and of “hard-hitting investigative journalism” from corrupt mass media conglomerates. However, in much of the world the reality remains one of control over the generation of “news” by consolidated corporate control, political elites, and covert action agencies (intelligence agencies). As such, the ample “news” consumed by the masses tends to be little more than the disinformation necessary to engineer consent for the agendas of political and corporate power.
It is also important to differentiate propaganda matrices from the standard deceptions employed during the course of psychological warfare campaigns. Propaganda matrices distinguish themselves in the:
- Number of Deceits: typical psychological warfare operations utilize a relatively smaller amounts of deceptions owing to the limited goals of an operation and the lesser quantity of deceptions needed to further the specific goals of an operation. Conversely, propaganda matrices are used for far more ambitious goals and involve hundreds, thousands, to millions of discrete deceits and deceptions all in service of engineering extreme psychological endpoints.
- Degree of Psychological Constraint: the typical deceptions used in psychological warfare are usually temporary manipulations that are often disposable and can be readily discarded once the objectives of an operation have been completed (i.e. standard deceptions are usually highly effective albeit temporary psychological manipulations). Conversely, propaganda matrices are intended to bind the cognition and reasoning faculties of audiences irreversibly and on permanent basis.
- Mythmaking: propaganda matrices are key instruments in the construction of the commonly held albeit wholly erroneous myths engineered into societies and to which societies are bound. Because of the great number of deceptions, these propaganda matrices are critical to the shaping of general cognition and the cultivating of desired worldviews of entire populations.
As it concerns the propaganda matrix construction in PSOs, the deceptions build upon one another and are implemented in “sets,” with the sets building upon one another systematically creating overarching paradigms of deception. Each set of deceptions must be accepted as being true (propaganda uptake) before the next set can be implemented. This causes there to be a cyclical nature to the deception process with cycles consisting of deceptions, uptake, acceptance and schematic integration, and progression to the next set of deceptions. The full range of psychological warfare techniques are expertly implemented in order to ensure the embedding of the deceptions into the schematic understanding of audiences.
As it concerns the Magical Thinking Technique:
Central to the PSOs is the weaponized crisis which is portrayed with two principal goals in mind:
- To instill hysterical and irrational fear into audiences.
- To create a mendacious narrative surrounding the crisis which portrays the central ruse of the PSO as magical, fantastical, literally physically impossible, and an ever-evolving threat.
This second goal of PSOs (of crisis presentation) is furthered with the implementation of the Strategy of Irrationality discussed at length in the treatise On Paradigm Shifting Operations. A key component of the Strategy of Irrationality is the MTT and the imbuing of “magical” qualities to the fear-inducing stimulus. Given the extent to which this methodology has been utilized during the course of the Coronavirus PSO, the resulting phenomena have come to be major defining features of the operation and have resulted in delusional disinformation constructs which bleed into a wide range of related conceptions.
For the purposes of this discussion the Magical Thinking Technique will be described in brief:
Within the scope of PSOs, MTT aims to systematically inject elements of irrationality, irreality, and fantasy into the portrayal of the central ruse of the “crisis” with these fantastical elements being incorporated into the schematic understanding of audiences over time. This process of the uptake of psychological warfare deceptions is performed gradually in a methodical step-by-step manner as to inure audiences to the overarching descent into absurdity and carefully guide them into the desired delusional paradigms. Great efforts are taken during each step/phase in the descent into absurdity to metaphorically “cement” the acceptance of the current set of deceptions before continuing on to subsequent sets of deceptions which are more absurd and overtly fantastical. These deceptions build upon one another creating an overarching delusional framework which increasingly detaches and ultimately breaks audiences from objective reality.
The descent into delusions is performed by initially beginning with sets of disinformation that are moderately logical and extremely plausible. This is then followed by sets of disinformation which are increasingly unlikely, illogical, and implausible. Ultimately, the descent continues with sets of disinformation which are incredibly ridiculous and outrageously impossible. As each step is a relatively minor illogical leap from the last, the overwhelming sense of the absurd is not acutely and consciously understood by audiences. Fear is used to great effect throughout the implementation of this technique to destabilize reasoning and override logical sensibilities of audiences which greatly facilitates the acceptance of the irrational.
Despite the methodical descent into absurd delusions, the egregious disinformation is not presented in such a manner as to be readily understood as being patently ridiculous and absolutely impossible. Rather great efforts are taken to present the egregious disinformation in a manner that appears extremely grounded and truthful. This is performed through a variety of means although the net effect is the uncritical acceptance by audiences of the irrational disinformation as being absolutely true and vitally important to be believed.
These sets of disinformation are systematically absorbed into the schematic understanding of audiences which (over time) have profound and seismic effects on their psychological schematic superstructure. The massive manipulations of perception and the injections of large quantities of irrational fantasy into the understanding of reality engineers a gradual break from reality itself. The continued absorption of disinformation (which is combined with the Strategy of Tension and other ancillary techniques of the Strategy of Irrationality) have profound effects on psychological functioning, perception, and behavior.
Almost invariably this technique is performed in conjunction with the social engineering of audiences. The social engineering goals of PSOs as it concerns MTT include:
- To “think” and pseudo-reason within the illogical framework of the delusions.
- To reject logical reasoning which challenges the delusions.
- To engineer an aversion to information which challenges the deceptions.
- To engineer audiences to view with antipathy and hostility “nonbelievers.”
- To either coerce others into the delusional paradigms or ostracize them for nonbelief.
Audiences are propagandized into perceiving those who do not accept the sequential frauds as being “unreasonable” and “irresponsible.” As a consequence of the weaponized social dynamics, propagandized individuals are liable to view poorly those who do not share their delusional constructs and will likely attempt to “convert” others into their own profoundly delusional states. The propagandized are also liable to alienate many people in their social sphere who could assist in the grounding of their thought processes. The programming of audiences to reject information which challenges the chain of deceptions is critical as the injection of truth and reason at critical junctures has the potential of destabilizing the cementation of disinformation and can rouse audiences into a state of cognitive awareness as to their descent into extreme irrationality and outrageous delusion.
Because such techniques are not performed on individuals in isolation but on a massive scale, the collective descent into logical incoherence, absurdity, and delusions does not seem abnormal or unnatural to those experiencing the technique. In such environments, those who are grounded, logical, and resistant to propaganda will appear as “irrational” and “delusional” and the swathes of propagandized (who are functionally delusional) will appear as “normal.” Viewed from afar and free from experiencing firsthand the maelstrom of psychological warfare, an individual would very clearly identify the mendacious, illogical, incongruent, and ludicrous elements as well as the profoundly absurd magical thought processes being cultivated in audiences.
The endpoints of the Magical Thinking Technique are schematic disinformation constructs and pathological states of thought and perception that are (in the psychiatric sense) delusional and psychotic. This technique (as well as the various methods utilized in the Strategy of Irrationality) are specifically intended to corrupt the logical capacities of audiences often to a degree that these capacities have been wholly subverted and supplanted by cognitive paradigms of profound and incoherent irrationality. Such patently illogical thought processes are then used to lead audiences to desired extreme conclusions and engineer acceptance of abhorrent agendas which would otherwise have been highly unpalatable and fiercely resisted.
Similar to many of the techniques used in psychological warfare, MTT involves the intentional engineering of psychopathology often to extreme and debilitating endpoints. Functionally, the endpoints of MTT are a spectrum of novel psychopathologies which display characteristics which mimic certain conventional psychopathologies. Of note, the technique produces patterns of thought and perception which mimic the “magical thinking” or psychoticism of Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Schizotypal psychoticism is characterized by odd beliefs, eccentric superstitiousness, bizarre views of reality, magical thinking which influences behavior, thought processes and thought content which are fantastical and bizarre, and given to unusual interpretations of experienced reality. The MTT also produces pathological thought, perception, and behavior which can mimic milder aspects of the different psychopathologies within the spectrum of psychotic disorders. This class of disorders are defined by psychological breaks from reality.
Because these extreme psychopathologies are engineered en masse, the outliers of individuals which retain rationality and a grounded understanding of reality increasingly appear “odd,” “abnormal,” or “aberrant” as societies further descend into engineered delusions and psychosis. As these contrived psychopathologies are engineered via psychological warfare operations, upon the cessation of psychological warfare campaigns most individuals will begin to revert back to their baseline states of mental health and rational capability. However, given the incredible intensity of psychological warfare campaigns, many individuals are apt to retain certain facets of the magical thinking that was engineered during the course of the campaign.
Deceptions of the Coronavirus Paradigm Shifting Operation
Not every deception will be covered in these discussions. As the Coronavirus PSO is still an ongoing operation there is likely to be major deceptions introduced in the near future which have not been covered at this time. Furthermore, these discussions are intended to be abstract analyses dealing with general theory and do not explore the underlying science in a comprehensive manner.
The list of the discussions include:
- Naturally Occurring
- Fantastical Zoonotic Hopscotch
- Containment Failure
- Magical Spread
- Asymptomatic Infection and Asymptomatic Transmission
- Disease of a Thousand Faces and Vague Symptomology
- Long-Haul Covid
- Weaponized Pseudo-pandemic and Moving Targets
- Magical Safety Measures
- Safe and Effective Pseudo-vaccines
- Vaccine Deficiency
- Magical Evolutionary Capacity
- Forever Boosters
- The Scapegoating and Defamation of the Unvaccinated
These discussions will be followed by a conclusion section titled “Net Effect” which summarizes the cumulative effects of these deceptions.
Deception: Naturally Occurring
Human history as it concerns communicable disease should be abstractly understood as falling within two broad categories: human history up-to 1950 (natural pathogenic dynamics) and human history post-1950 (the standardization of covert biological warfare). Such a categorization assists in delineating the history of communicable diseases in a manner that reflects humanity’s gaining of the knowledge and know-how necessary to engineer novel pathogens. Furthermore, it demarcates the natural occurrence and patterns of infectious disease from the artificial outbreaks and acts of covert biowarfare which have come to define the contemporary era.
The rise of biowarfare programs has seen an explosion in novel infectious agents at a rate far beyond what has been previously observed throughout human history. This will be elaborated upon further in the section “The Rise of Biowarfare,” however it merits mentioning in this subsection. This rise of covert biowarfare has led to the unnatural “rise” in outbreaks of novel communicable diseases with increasing alarming “sudden” appearance of full-fledged species of pathogens and wholly novel viral constructs.
Ecosystems are limited in their capacity to function as incubators for the required biological dynamics conducive to producing novel pathogens. These natural processes work at established rates with predictable evolutionary dynamics and a predictable “output” of novel pathogens. Human history had experienced outbreaks which had been rather consistent and directly related to relevant issues during each era of human history.
In the contemporary context and especially as it concerns the Coronavirus PSO, “naturally occurring” outbreak is the standard excuse provided for live biowarfare testing and biowarfare campaigns. As most advanced countries already implement biosecurity protocols, the possibility of a naturally-derived novel pathogen proliferating to epidemic proportions is virtually impossible. A part of the biosecurity systems includes the sampling of naturally occurring pathogens in their respective environments and ecosystems. The determination of whether novel pathogens are engineered or natural is as simple as analyzing the genome of the pathogen and comparing it to the library of genetic sequences of known pathogens. As pathogens have a highly predictable evolutionary capacity, there is a predictable range of variability that any given pathogen can attain naturally over any given period of time.
Indicators of biowarfare include:
- Wholly new viruses with little to no homology with naturally occurring pathogens.
- Pathogens with drastic genomic “leaps.”
- Extremely novel biochemical machinery.
- Pathogens which show a degree of biochemical sophistication above and beyond what one would expect from naturally occurring pathogens.
Furthermore, pathogens which demonstrate mutagenesis far beyond the evolutionary capacity of the pathogen (determined by its biochemical replication mechanisms) are bioweaponry until proven otherwise.
Deception: Fantastical Zoonotic Hopscotch
While different classes of pathogens may have a wide range of infective targets, when it comes to viruses the infectivity range tends to be extremely constricted in comparison to infectivity spectrum of other pathogens. The limited infectivity means that most viruses are specific to a cell-type and specific to a species. This is due to two major reasons:
- Viruses are obligate intracellular parasitic constructs that are non-motile and require the hijacking of the cellular machinery and resources of its cellular host for replication and propagation. This necessitates the hijacking of very specific cellular machinery and deviations in the necessary cellular machinery and cellular products will result in either replication failure or propagation failure. As such, viruses tend to be extremely specialized in terms of their preferred cellular targets. Even for a target species, viruses affect very specific cellular targets and rarely broadly infect different cell types. This specificity is mediated through viral surface proteins which bind to very specific target receptors or extracellular constructs on the surface of their cellular targets.
- As a consequence of speciation, species drift apart genetically and develop biochemical distinction for all types of genes and gene products. This includes biochemical machinery and cell surface receptors. Because viruses develop affinity for the cellular receptors and cell surface structures of specific cellular targets and evolve to better infect these very specific receptors, the increased affinity for a distinct biochemical target almost invariably comes at the cost of the ability to infect homologous targets on comparable cells of other species. Homologous receptors tend to have species distinction with the distinction being least pronounced between extremely related species and increasingly pronounced distinctiveness the greater the evolutionary divide is between two species. This generally translates to viruses specializing in a specific species (or defined range of species) and being unable to effectively “jump” and infect extremely different species.
There are major and significant exceptions to this general principle of virology. Certain classes of viruses (i.e. Influenza viruses) have a known ability to jump between certain species. Part of this is due to the viruses experiencing evolutionary advantageous co-infection recombination with other influenza strains specific to other species. Viruses such as the rabies virus are also well-known to have had evolutionary selective pressure which has conferred the virus with the ability to infect many species with ease. Furthermore, within the laboratory setting it is possible to force certain viral infections into different species that would not normally occur in a natural setting.
Exceptions aside, the Coronavirus PSO has forced a narrative of essentially “magical” species hoping that effectively exceeds that of Influenza viruses and is highly implausible if not outright impossible. There are practical reasons for this deception:
- The original deception in regards to the “outbreak” involved the unproven allegation that a Chinese patient zero contracted the coronavirus infection from live bats at a Wuhan market. This deception serves to dehumanize Chinese people, demean their culture, and attempt to undermine their growing geopolitical importance. The overtly racist allegation is not founded on material facts nor is it compatible with the geopolitical picture of unfolding events.
- The impossible number of alleged animal hosts for the coronavirus bioweapons (from a fantastical range of wild fauna to domesticated animals) provides a degree of fantastical flexibility to the central ruse of the crisis. This will undoubtedly be one amongst the many excuses provided for why containment and eradication efforts will “fail.” The specter of “natural reservoirs” of these bioweapons will also provide a cover narrative for otherwise unexplainable biowarfare attacks and bolster the pretext for the biosecurity state being extended ad infinitum.
The zoonotic hypothesis has been used as an excuse during the Coronavirus PSO mostly to avert public speculation that the coronavirus strains and their subsequent mutations and serotypes are bioweaponry. However, this deception has been complemented by the “hypothesis” that the bioweaponry were “accidentally” released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, neither of these “hypotheses” addresses the continued state-sponsored biowarfare against the citizenry, the overt psychological terrorism conducted on audiences via mass media, nor the coordinated global descent into totalitarianism.
Deception: Containment Failure
The containment protocols for viruses are rather straightforward. This is once again due to the fact that viruses are non-motile (fully immobile) obligate intracellular parasitic constructs that must rely on:
- Physical Dynamics: fluid dynamics of air or water, contact with fomites, etcetera.
- Host Physiological Reactions: coughing, sneezing, vomiting, bleeding, defecating, etcetera.
- Host Behavioral Dynamics: congregating with other members of their own species, touch behaviors with other members of their species, eating behaviors, fecal behaviors, engaging in intercourse, etcetera.
What this means in practice is that the epidemiology of viruses tends to be very responsive to appropriate public health measures and appropriate containment and eradication protocols if these measures appropriately address the critical factors on which viruses must absolutely rely upon for propagation.
It must also be noted that some of the most notable countries feigning helplessness at containment of a non-motile pathogen are also countries with extremely advanced biowarfare programs (i.e. the United States, United Kingdom, China, and the Russia Federation). By necessity, the knowledge acquisition involved in biowarfare involves the mastery of pathogen containment (both in the laboratory setting and in field applications), the mastery of associated technologies, intimate knowledge on all aspects of bioweaponry, the development of highly accurate models on the real-world spread of natural pathogens and bioweapons, and the mastery of vaccines, therapeutics, treatments, and antidotes. Such mastery is not merely necessary for the offensive and defensive aspects of biowarfare, the expertise is also applicable to naturally occurring infectious agents.
Countries with sufficiently advanced biowarfare programs that feign helplessness in the face of purportedly “natural” pathogens are (until proven otherwise by a preponderance of evidence) being dishonest and disingenuous. These purported “biosecurity failures” must be juxtaposed with the hostile actions taken by governments against the welfare of their peoples. Specifically, as it concerns the Coronavirus PSO the continuous “biosecurity failures” are used as the pretext for an ongoing “crisis” whose only “solution” is the continued totalitarian transformation of nations.
A rough and imperfect analogy is as follows: if a superpower develops incendiary bombs and firebombing strategies to use in warfare it must also develop alongside its growing expertise the counterstrategies and tactics necessary for containing the use of such technology and tactics on itself. Such a country is liable to perform an in-depth analysis of its fire susceptibility as a normal part of its internal national security analysis. If a superpower has developed the expertise, technology, protocols, and security apparatus necessary to quell large-scale fire attacks that would be expected during the course of warfare, these systems would serve a parallel function to deal with naturally occurring fires. Indeed, dealing with natural fires would be exceedingly easy and simple in comparison to the extent, sophistication, and complexity of intentional firebombing or arson. A nation that has these systems but fails to disclose its expertise to its own population and then feigns helplessness when a suspicious “natural” fire breaks out is being disingenuous by default. Such mendacity must be mercilessly scrutinized.
Conversely, if the government of a nation has developed sophisticated technology and protocols to effectively combat advanced and sophisticated biowarfare attacks and then feigns abject helplessness at a purportedly natural pathogen it is engaging in dangerous deceits against its own people and being criminally mendacious. If this is compounded by the government of such a country intentionally abusing the emergency situation to further descents into tyranny or totalitarianism, such a situation should be readily understood by the populace as the intentional weaponization of crisis. That government should be understood as being overtly dangerous and as having lost the legitimacy to rule.
It must be noted that a defining feature of PSOs is the implausible string of “security failures” which allowed a “crisis” to occur. As a juxtaposition, a whole string of critical “security failures” had to have happened in perfect and coordinated succession in order for the 9/11 incident (critical to the 9/11 PSO) to occur. Indeed, had it not been for the “accidental” (i.e. intentional) security “mismanagement” (i.e. critical multi-level insider coordination), such an operation would have been easily and prematurely ended by the normal security systems and protocols already in place. Likewise, an implausible string of “security failures” have allowed the Coronavirus PSO’s “crisis” to occur and have been instrumental in the continued furtherment and management of the weaponized crisis.
The Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) had outbreaks in heavily populated urban areas but were quickly and effectively contained. Both of these strains of coronaviruses are understood to be deadlier and more virulent than the majority of the bioweaponry used in the Coronavirus PSO. There is reason to suspect that these “outbreaks” were biowarfare testing. Regardless, the containment of these outbreaks was straightforward and uncomplicated.
It should be noted that the Chinese government instituted “lockdowns” (i.e. pseudo-medical house arrests) of the entire city of Wuhan (irrespective of outbreak “hot spots”), quarantined the entire city, blocked entry into and out of the city), and employed widespread disinfection protocols. Despite the inordinate, histrionic, and cartoonish actions by the Chinese government and the most aggressive and totalitarian containment efforts ever conducted in known human history, the bioweaponry “magically” was able to go global. This official narrative beggars belief and merely adds to the overtly fantastical and magical presentation of the coronavirus strains of the Coronavirus PSO. Such continued “containment failure” leaves only two logical conclusions: 1) the coronavirus strains are “magical” with arcane “magical properties” which defy conventional non-magical measures or 2) an ongoing biowarfare campaign.
During the descent into totalitarianism, the false promise of “containment and eradication” has been repeatedly promised to the citizenry with the false promises of “returning to normal” if only the citizenry believe the mendacious presentation of events and faithfully obey the increasingly ludicrous and onerous demands of technocrats. Each round of demands and consequent public compliance is always met with the metaphorical “moving of the goal-post” and the public is continuously denied the outcomes they were promised. Mendacious explanations are routinely given as to why the current level of obedience and compliance is insufficient and why the onerous measures did not succeed at pathogen containment and eradication. More demands are made of the public to attain the illusory promise of an “end to the pandemic” and many amongst audiences continue to accept the systematic erosion of their rights and liberties.
A short recapitulation of the “containment failures” merit mentioning:
- Containment “failure” of the totalitarian and extreme quarantining of the city of Wuhan, China.
- The 2 week “lockdown” measures employed in many regions around the world originally instituted for the purported reason of not overwhelming hospital Intensive Care Units (ICUs).
- The “lockdowns” get extended indefinitely with the rhetoric of “flattening the curve” (i.e. lowering infection rates).
- The “lockdowns” and irrational pseudo-preventative measures (i.e. “social distancing” and mask mandates) are employed to lower infections rates and “safeguard” the elderly. This despite individuals not being mandated to employ such measures only around vulnerable patient populations given that the pathogen was understood early on to not be critical or lethal in non-elderly demographics. Authorities claim the disease does not affect the young and is not lethal to most of the adult population. At this juncture the disease is claimed to be almost exclusively lethal to those with severe secondary illnesses and the elderly.
- Politicians and technocrats discourage attempts by the population of engaging in normal behavior or of getting infected on purpose in order to acquire natural immunity. Psychological terrorism is used with ambiguous ill-defined claims of potentially devastating long-term sequelae and a general fear is cultivated of the “horrors” of getting infected. This is complemented with the canard of “re-infection” with the same serotype of the virus thus making such efforts appear futile.
- Dangerous novel technologies described as “vaccines” are rapidly introduced under an “emergency use authorization” as one of the catastrophic “emergency measures.” These are rushed to market in a corrupted process defined by rigged studies and insufficient testing. The “vaccines” are initially distributed to the elderly and vulnerable populations.
- Initially the known effectiveness and well-established safety of convalescent plasma was kept from the public consciousness. Eventually the methodology was allowed to enter the public consciousness by the media and was allowed to be accepted as an effective and viable treatment for the coronavirus infection. The transfer of humoral immunity via serum has long been known to confer effective short-term humoral immunity to patients. In cases such as the Coronavirus PSO (in which there is a novel outbreak with no established vaccine technologies) this methodology represents the superior choice as far as safety and efficacy and is lifesaving in most cases of severe infections. The science and understanding behind humoral immunity transfer is well known as is the superiority of this methodology over the novel technologies. This realization was never allowed to fully enter the public consciousness and was generally suppressed in favor of novel experimental technologies of overtly dangerous design.
- The media made great efforts to mis-portray the dangerous “vaccines” that were being rapidly developed as the “solution” to “ending” the “pandemic.” This included downplaying the untested and experimental nature of the technology and the multiple layers of danger associated with such technology (experimental lipids/viral vectors, intracellular foreign mRNA which is liable to provoke an autoimmune response, viral protein expression and the consequent physiological interactions). The novel injections were given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in a process that can at best be described as extremely corrupt.
- Great emphasis was placed on the “safety” and “effectiveness” of these technologies when such claims were impossible, patently false, or grossly exaggerated. Short-term safety studies were essentially rigged and the long-term safety data was simply not available. From the beginning, the “effectiveness” was a deception with the studies rigged in favor of desired results. There was also a conspicuous absence of immune challenge trials. The experimental technology was not considered “effective” by the traditional rubric of vaccine technologies and was questionable even as a prophylactic therapeutic. The experimental technology was understood to not confer humoral immunity and consequently was useless for containment and eradication purposes. The studies were designed to demonstrate a reduction in hospitalization and death though the studies failed to prove these intended benefits. The “goal-post” was then moved to “demonstrate” a reduction in mild symptoms and not hospitalization or death. These “mild symptoms” constituted relatively trivial clinical issues such as coughing and fever. The public was deceived into thinking the “vaccines” would grant immunity when the technology was not “designed” to generate neutralizing antibodies. It is noteworthy that the claim that non-neutralizing antibodies could reducing mild symptoms (such as coughing and fever) constitutes “medical magic” and is outrageous nonsense. The claim is anathema to the basic principles of immunology and represents an exercise in pseudoscience chicanery. Millions and then billions of people subjected themselves to these dangerous experimental injections with the understanding that their cooperation would bring an end to the crisis.
- The narrative is surreptitiously seeded in the “fine print” of the principal studies that the “vaccines” will not end the “pandemic.” Concerned citizens and the independent press in the alternative media sphere who drew public attention to the “fine print” and the actual language of the study were aggressively censored and were subjected to sociopolitical persecution. propaganda efforts were taken at the early critical phases when the “vaccines” were being rolled-out to assure the citizenry that the “vaccines” were “safe and effective,” would confer immunity, and would succeed in ending the pandemic. This correct assertion by those who read the scientific studies was eventually accepted and publicized by the mainstream apparatus after a significant percentage of the citizenry had complied with government demands.
- The public was repeatedly promised that the “pandemic” would come to an end if only they could quickly insert the “jab” (a euphemism for the injection with the dangerous experimental technology) into “people’s arms.” This assertion continued even after it was acknowledged by the mainstream apparatus that the injected could still contract the virus, become ill, and transmit the virus. These “breakthrough cases” (i.e. vaccine failures) logically meant that the injections were by default useless at viral containment and eradication.
- There was a precipitous rise in internationally in reporting of Vaccine Adverse Events (VAEs) which includes the morbidity and mortality associated with vaccines. Internationally, the precipitous rise in VAEs associated with the experimental injections quickly reached epidemic levels with worrying numbers. Under normal circumstances in an uncorrupted context, the “safety signals” that were associated with these dangerous experimental technologies would have caused the rollout of the injections to have been halted.
- In the United States, all of the coronavirus injections quickly reached numbers of vaccine morbidity and mortality higher than all previous vaccines put together since the beginning of Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS). This continued until each of the experimental injections had more VAEs than all of the previous vaccines in the United States put together. In the United States there was mostly nonexistent follow-up by health agencies and industry of the torrent of the VAEs.
- Internationally, vaccine injured persons and the families of those killed by the vaccines were censored and in many cases were victims of sociopolitical persecution. In most countries the vaccine injured and the families of the dead did not have legal standing to sue the pharmaceutical cartel vaccine manufacturers. The agitation by the alternative media sphere and the slow awakening of populations to vaccine injuries eventually led the grudging admission of risks of certain serious injuries due to the injections. Due to the manner in which these injections were brought to market there was never the rigorous exploration of any potential mechanisms of injury or mechanisms of pathophysiology for these experimental technologies. The lack of publicly available scientific studies on the pathophysiology of injury for the experimental injections complicates the proper identification of long-term vaccine injuries and hinders the ability of the vaccine injured to gain any limited compensation for their vaccine injuries.
- The public was deceived into thinking that if enough people were “vaccinated” that herd immunity would be achieved and that the pandemic would come to an end. To reiterate, herd immunity cannot be achieved with immunization strategies that do not confer effective humoral immunity and immunity from infection. When over 80% of the public were in injected in many regions around the world, the public was then made to understand that the “vaccines” did not confer immunity but were functionally something akin to a “prophylactic therapy” of sorts. The public was cheekily informed they could still get infected from the coronaviruses, can still transmit the virus if infected, and could still be hospitalized and die despite having received the “vaccination.” Despite being told that the injections would not prevent infection, the public was still coaxed into believing that the vaccines were still “safe and effective” (despite the reversal of the rhetoric of effectiveness) and that it was critically important to inject the public with non-immunizing dangerous technologies. The public was deceived and the “goalpost” moved once more. The public’s wrath at being deceived was redirected from government and the pharmaceutical cartel to unvaccinated citizens with the clever use of psychological warfare.
- The public was told that the minority of persons who had not voluntarily gotten injected must now get injected to “protect” the “vaccinated.” This despite the “vaccinated” having received no protection of any kind from the dangerous novel technologies and an epidemic of VAEs and skyrocketing reports of vaccine deaths. thousands of reported deaths.
- The public did not receive the promised remuneration for the acquiescence to the rollout of the experimental injections. Post- mass injection, a sudden “phenomenon” arose of a sudden magical mutation rate which was presented to the public as “frustrating” containment and eradication. The “rise” of new “variants” (a term that had hitherto was not a scientific or medical term) represents another fraud played on the public. The “variant phenomenon” suspiciously coincided with the successful drive in “vaccinating” millions of people and once again constituted a “moving of the goalpost.” The new “variants” are the excuse of why “containment” will never be achieved, is one of the excuses for the rollout of the biosecurity state, and will be the underlying rationale for why “boosters” will be forced upon the public forevermore. Mandatory every 6 months to a year.
- Onerous and tyrannical “biosecurity state” measures begin being rolled out which are purportedly “necessary” to “contain” the “pandemic” and “return to normal.” Throughout the entire process up to this point, the world’s citizenry had been propagandized into totalitarian “new normals” which had been rolled out on a weekly to monthly basis. The continued loss of freedoms represented the only remuneration the citizenry will ever receive for their credulity, cooperation, and obedience.
It is especially noteworthy in this synopsis that some of the containment measures are sufficient to halt the spread of all communicable diseases (i.e. the total quarantining of a geographical region). Extreme measures should produce extreme results and the “inability” to produce immediate containment and eradication were never explained to the world’s citizenry. As a juxtaposition, both MERS and SARS (which are understood to be more virulent and deadly coronavirus strains of coronaviruses) were contained effectively with no burden or imposition on the general public. No onerous or authoritarian measures were necessary and there was no international pandemic. That there is a clear precedent of the successful containment of comparable viruses in recent history without the totalitarian transformation of society has been generally overlooked by the general public.
When such extreme measures are forced in an undemocratic manner upon the public with the promises of effective results, these results and these results fail to manifest, one would expect the public’s trust in their respective governments to reflect the clear pattern of deception and intent to harm. Psychological warfare and propaganda was liberally employed to ensure acceptable levels of public confidence in the criminal acts of government and excuse the unending “containment failures.”
Deception: Magical Spread
The bioweaponry used during the Coronavirus PSO has been portrayed in such a manner that depicts its virulence and propagation mechanisms in a manner that is wildly fantastical and literally physically impossible. This has been done for two principle reasons: 1) it furthers the Magical Thinking Technique and 2) it serves to justify a subsect of the agendas of the Coronavirus PSO.
The deceits involved in the “magical spread” deception include:
- Utilizing terms in referring to the propagation of the “outbreak” such as “waves,” arriving at a place using phrases and terminology reminiscent of a storm making landfall, and the use of other weather terminology which is factually incorrect and intentionally misleading. This terminology intentionally cultivates an erroneous misperception in regards to infectious diseases and confers a sense of inevitability as if the “pandemic” were a catastrophic and uncontrollable force of nature.
- Fomite transmission and touch transmission of an airborne disease. The respiratory virus has been mis-portrayed as being able to be easily passed by touch transmission. Viruses usually have major mechanisms of transmission as well as minor and/or incidental mechanisms. In this particular case, great emphasis was placed on contact with hands, touching one’s face with one’s hands, or touching infected surfaces, objects, or foodstuffs. This did not reflect the dynamics of community transmission nor the known major mechanisms of coronavirus transmission. Furthermore, much of this presentation and mechanism of transmission “diversity” was overtly fantastical and nonsensical and has been antithetical to the core scientific principles of infectious diseases.
- Snot and saliva transmission. The virus has been mis-portrayed as being able to easily infect via spit or “spittle” (i.e. small amounts of ejected saliva from the mouth of the infected). Again, this proposed mechanism of transmission did not have a basis in historical disease control for respiratory viruses. Despite this, the emphasis on this mode of transmission was used as the rationale for overtly ridiculous face shields. A great majority of the saliva precautions were not based on preexisting scientific or medical literature nor were they based on a grounded extrapolation of the theory of the clinical sciences.
The other deceptions involved in the overarching “magical spread” deception will be covered in the subsequent sub-sections.
A core aspect of MTT as it concerns PSOs is the intentional portrayal of the central ruse of an operation in a manner which is wholly fantastical and intentionally divorced from reality. This not merely confers unnatural limitless flexibility to the perception of the central ruse but it functions to force audiences to consciously and subconsciously suppress their logical faculties and maintain for extended periods of time a limitless “suspension of disbelief” in which anything can be believed. In this state of mind audiences will believe anything authority figures tell them regardless of how overtly outrageous it may be. This ungrounded state is then used to force the acceptance of a torrent of increasingly ludicrous claims which rapidly veer audiences into the realm of the obscenely illogical.
Many of the claims and proposed mechanisms of transmission were (and continue to be) overtly fantastical. Audiences were nonetheless psychologically manipulated into believing outrageous nonsense despite their better judgement and unspoken misgivings. The acceptance of the absurd was critically important in breaking down the logic of audiences and forcing an unnatural “open-mindedness” to being outrageously deceived. This was also used to engineer the reliance by audiences on the interpretations of “truth” by authority figures who function as the arbiters of perceived reality.
The ”magical spread” of the viruses in the Coronavirus PSO was just such a critical deception which confers limitless flexibility to the overarching deceptions necessary to further the agendas of the operation. These deceptions are overtly antithetical to the medical sciences and the clinical specialty of Infectious Diseases. The relevant issues involved in the clinical sciences will be explained in brief.
Viral infections in human hosts by necessity depend on replication within the infected persons as well as (usually) human-to-human dynamics in order to propagate to a immunologically naïve host. If infected individuals take efforts to limit their infectivity to others usually the proper application of scientific theory and adequate precautions, they can be successful in being a terminal host for the viral infection. Public health measures take advantage of intentional changes in human behavior combined with ancillary methods and technologies to contain or eradicate infectious diseases. If the science and techniques are applied correctly, the infectivity rate decreases and viruses can be limited. In best case scenarios viral pathogens can be contained and eventually eradicated. Sick contacts are the primary mode of transmission for most viruses with the exception of viruses which infect epithelial cells which might retain infectivity on surfaces for extended periods of time. If a person is not exposed to infected contacts (for the majority of viruses), they have zero risk of being infected with a particular virus.
Viruses evolve to better infect their specific cellular targets based on the previously described physical and biological factors. Evolutionary selective pressures on viral pathogens lead to drastic differences in the dynamics of infectivity and their real-world transmission. For example, viruses that can infect epithelial cell types can develop adaptations to become hardy and be able to remain infectious outside the human body in an open environment for extended periods of time. This would allow for fomite transmission or the ability to infect via viral particulates on object surfaces. The adaptations that would allow for such features would come at the expense of those necessary for effective at respiratory transmission. These inherent limitations of the specialization of viruses dictated by the 1) the cellular targets and 2) the biochemistry and physical properties of the virions are quintessential in the control of viral diseases. Indeed, proper application of scientific theory will always lead to attainment of desired results.
Respiratory viruses rely almost exclusively on becoming airborne and floating directly to the location of their cellular targets when the particles are inhaled by a target. The process of becoming airborne is likewise mediated almost exclusively on the mechanisms of the physical signs of infection (i.e. sneezing or coughing) with the infectivity rapidly decreasing to near zero if these physiological reactions are absent or blocked. The extremely strong movements of air of these mechanisms force the aerosolization of the viruses. Aerosolized viruses are able to remain airborne for extended periods of time with the specific dynamics of aerosolization depending on numerous factors. Once aerosolized, viral pathogens are wholly dependent on the fluid dynamics of air to reach another vulnerable target.
If the virus particles have not reached directly their cellular targets, upon landing they do not have the mechanisms necessary to travel to the location of their desired cellular targets as they are immobile constructs. Furthermore, once these aerosolized particles land on a surface, they are not liable to become airborne again as they do not have the properties of extremely dry, highly kinetic dust-like particulate (necessary to become aerosolized again if disturbed). For a viral infection to gain a foothold in a target, enough active viruses must be introduced into the target (the inoculum quantity of the virus) for a self-replicating infection to take root and form a full-blown infection.
These basic principles have been wholly discarded or intentionally overlooked during the course of the psychological warfare campaigns of the Coronavirus PSO. What has been done in terms of the “magical spread” deception is create a cartoonish misconception in regards to the very basic concepts of the clinical sciences. The reasons for these deceptions are as follows:
- The fomite transmission deceit has been especially used to vilify physical currency. This is vilification is part or the push towards the “cashless society.”
- The fomite transmission deceit has been used to encourage the general digitization of the economy and the reduction of all “none essential” human contact.
- The deception of the “magical spread” has caused people to become fearful of human contact and has engineered a crippling “OCD-like” psychopathology as it concerns infection and basic human contact. This has artificially diminished physical social dynamics and has caused the forced migration of human social dynamics into the digital sphere. This “digitization of human interaction” is one which allows for greater surveillance over populations, allows for the targeted censorship of “undesirable” human interactions, allows for manipulation of the dynamics of civil discourse, and increases the potency and efficiency of online psychological warfare operations.
- The aversion to human contact has decreased social unity and cohesiveness which (combined with concurrent divide and rule strategies) has diminished the capacity of the citizenry to mount an effective defense of their collective interests.
- The fomite transmission deception and the general aversion to human contact has been critical in decimating the “brick and mortar” establishments and greatly expanded the market-share of online conglomerates such as Amazon. These dynamics have decreased the viability of independent small business while simultaneously magnifying the wealth and power of powerful well-connected transnational corporate interests.
Deception: Asymptomatic Infection and Asymptomatic Transmission
One of the key deceptions in the web of mendacity of the Coronavirus PSO is the canard of “asymptomatic infection” and “asymptomatic transmission.” These intertwined deceptions are the primary excuses for the rollout of the biosecurity state and have been critical in engineering of dysfunctional social dynamics. The paradigm of the biosecurity state involves the increased surveillance of populations who are to be treated as semi-criminal “infected persons presumed to be sick or infected until “proven” otherwise. This presumption of “guilt” of being infected has its pseudoscientific basis on the deceits that healthy persons could potentially be “asymptomatically infected” and could “asymptomatic transmit” the viruses. Both of these deceptions are highly antithetical to the core principles of Immunology and Infectious Diseases.
To understand the nature of this deception, the issue of testing and misdiagnosis must be addressed followed by an exploration into the core concepts of clinical medicine which make such claims functionally impossible.
At the center of much of the deceptions surrounding the Coronavirus PSO are the testing modalities and the manner in which test results are interpreted. The key testing modalities are the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests and antigen tests with equivocal “results” by any of these tests interpreted as a “positive” result irrespective of the clinical picture of that “positive.” All other testing strategies and miscellaneous tests which would normally be employed during such situations have been intentionally disregarded in favor of the nearly singular use of PCR tests or antigen tests.
The asymptomatic deception itself is rooted in the glut of false positive generated by the misuse and hyper-reliance on these tests. While an in-depth exploration into the scientific principles of these tests is beyond the scope of this discourse, some of the fundamental issues in regards to their misuse merit mentioning. As it concerns the PCR test, PCR tests magnify variable quantities of ribonucleic acids (RNA or DNA) in samples to levels where they can be detected. With sufficient cycles of amplification of ribonucleic acids, PCR is able to replicate a single strand of ribonucleic acids to desired quantities. Within clinical testing the rounds of amplification is the “cycle threshold” of the PCR test.
The cycle threshold can be likened to the magnification of a microscope or the sensitivity of a Geiger counter; the cycle threshold has to be chosen judiciously because an improper cycle threshold would be too sensitive and produce “positive” results that are clinically useless. To use the example of a Geiger counter: if the detection of radioactivity by a Geiger counter is considered a “positive” result without consideration of the quantity of radioactivity, then even ambient radioactivity will be interpreted as a “positive” without acknowledging natural levels of radioactivity. Similarly, if a PCR test cycle threshold is too high and a single strand of ribonucleic acid of an airborne virus can set it off, theoretically the test can be “positive” by the mere sampling of the air in a clinical setting. The concentrations and quantities of ribonucleic acids have to be carefully chosen based on clinically relevant data. An absurdly high cycle threshold far above what would be considered appropriate to generate reasonably accurate results essentially rigs the tests in favor of false positives and renders the test functionally useless for the purposes of generating clinically pertinent data.
All laboratory tests have false positives and false negatives results. The percentages (likelihood) of these misleading results for any given population demographic must be factored into any clinical analysis. False positives rates are affected by the specifics of the tests themselves and by the prevalence of a disease in a population. The rarer the disease, the more common the false positive results and the higher the false positive percentage. Over-testing in a population with a very low incidence of a disease will naturally produce unacceptably high number of false positives. This is a well-established fact in the clinical sciences.
Within a normal clinical context, one would expect to see PCR tests used as an ancillary laboratory test to assist in the confirmation of a diagnosis rather than to make a diagnosis itself. PCR tests merely amplify strands of nucleic acids polymers (strands of RNA or DNA) to high enough concentrations where they can be detected. The detection of nucleic acid polymers does not mean anything other than the detection of that nucleic acid polymer sequence. For the greatest specificity, the nucleic acid polymer that is being amplified should be extremely specific and ideally unique to that which one desires to detect. This is useful in magnifying the quantity of extremely small, otherwise indetectable, nucleic acid polymers in a sample to detectable levels. The detection of nucleic acids does not de facto constitute an active infection nor can it be used to make any other overarching clinical assumption. A range of testing methodologies are available which can further assist in drawing out of clinically relevant data useful in making a definitive diagnosis and are critical in the formation of a grounded clinical assessment.
During the Coronavirus PSO, the coronavirus testing modalities are assumed to be 100% accurate and a “positive” result is interpreted as an individual being:
- Infected with a currently “active” infection and
- Being infectious.
This is intentionally scientifically incorrect and constitutes the willful disregard of the inherent limitations to PCR and antigen testing. Such misrepresentations of the core scientific principles behind these tests represent the intentional bastardization of science and medicine and their debasement into pernicious pseudoscience and faux-medical chicanery.
The array of other testing methodology critical to clinical assessments have been avoided as implementing them would very quickly undo the deceptions being engineered via the misuse of these testing modalities. Generally, positive results from PCR testing are militantly accepted with no protocols for re-testing or the use of other types of tests to confirm the diagnosis. The validity of these intentionally improper medical protocols is aggressively defended as “complicating” the misdiagnosis with ancillary tests is liable to quickly correct the glut of misdiagnoses.
In many ways, physicians are being trained to disregard their basic medical training in favor of an engineered pseudoscience groupthink which furthers the descent into delusions and which furthers the “medical magic” phenomenon. Under normal circumstances, a physician would begin with a medical history followed by a thorough physical examination which in turn would be followed by a preliminary round of laboratory tests and/or imaging tests. If the physician feels that more testing is warranted, more laboratory tests and/or imaging tests can be performed as needed.
The current protocols include the blanket mass testing of massive numbers of people often with little to no regards for their actual clinical picture. This mass testing is especially the case for persons accessing transportation services or for patients presenting to hospital and other healthcare systems. This blanket testing is performed regardless of the medical history or the clinical presentation of each case. This blanket mass testing is performed in spite of the well-known fact that doing so will produce an unacceptably high false positive rate. When this inappropriate testing produces a PCR “positive” result, the individual is then presumed to be “infected” and is counted as a “coronavirus case” regardless of their clinical presentation. Such individuals are then coerced into self-quarantine based on insufficient clinically-relevant data.
Such PCR “positives” are rarely confirmed by PCR retesting and are not confirmed with other relevant laboratory tests such as immunoassays, virus titers, virus cultivation, etcetera. These ancillary tests are critically in making a definitive diagnosis and extremely important in providing relevant information absolutely necessary to the formation of a clinically accurate assessment. Such “positives” are then counted towards infection rates and are used to formulate the figures in regards to morbidity and mortality rates.
Furthermore, the “asymptomatic infection” and “asymptomatic transmission” deceptions are antithetical to the very physiology of infection and inflammation. These concepts must be understood in the abstract to appreciate how such deceptions are divorced from scientific principles and reality itself.
Viremia (the presence of virus in the blood) provokes immunological and inflammatory cascades which are nonspecific and are activated by the presence of viral particulates in the blood stream. This occurs regardless of whether the particulates are even capable of infecting the host’s cells or if there is an active infection in place. The inflammatory and immunological cascades produce much of the symptomology of viral infections (as well as infections in general) and these unpleasant signs and symptoms represent the normal physiological reactions of the immune system and the proper activation of the inflammatory cascades.
These activations of the immune and inflammatory cascades are proportional to the concentration of pathogenic particles in the bloodstream with the symptoms being mild with low concentrations of viremia and severe the higher the concentration becomes. Furthermore, these reactions are independent of humoral immunity (antibody-mediated immunity). However, these inflammatory and immunological cascades are critical to the activation the immune system and its continued function all the way through the resolution of infection.
Not observing the core signs and symptoms of systemic inflammation such as chills, malaise, and fever within the context of viremia are indicative of serious underlying issues and failures in these immunological and inflammatory cascades. Such issues are especially germane in clinical contexts such as immunocompromised patients who may be on the verge of death with out-of-control viremia but who may present with normal clinical findings and may feel perfectly fine. In such rare truly asymptomatic cases, the immunocompromised patients may feel “fine” and have few abnormal physiological manifestations despite being close to imminent death. Regardless of the underlying issues, significant viremia without symptoms represents serious deficit in the systems of inflammation and in the immune system. In an immunocompetent state, a viral infection will by necessity produce signs and symptoms of infection.
To counter this basic scientific principle, it could be argued that that an “asymptomatic infection” could occur if there was only a localized infection in the respiratory tract. Such an argument would be a desperate stretching of plausibility in order to force a hypothesis that is not backed up by the material facts.
To begin with, the vasculature and physiology of the respiratory tract are such that it is nigh impossible to have a localized infection that does not find its way into the bloodstream. This is one of the reasons that respiratory infections tend to inevitable attain systemic dispersion once the infection has taken root. Furthermore, the activation of the cough and sneeze reflexes during the course of a respiratory infection are critical in the aerosolization of these types of pathogens. Without the rapid mobilization of air and sudden air turbulence, most pathogens are unable to become airborne. Without this mobilization and dispersion, respiratory pathogens would be unable to infect another host. The absence of such physical signs of respiratory infections would necessarily lower the infectivity of respiratory infections to near zero.
To force the asymptomatic infection hypothesis one could posit either:
- An incidental small localized infection on the respiratory mucosa which is clinical silent and having little to no clinical importance.
- An incidental finding of a small and limited reinfection of the nasal mucosa of a person who has effective humoral immunity. Such an exceedingly limited reinfection would be unable to properly self-replicate, would be exceedingly limited, would be clinically silent, and would be non-infectious.
- A localized or systemic viral infection that is somehow “invisible” to the immune system. Such an infection that would have the ability to remain undetected by the human immune system would be extremely deadly to the asymptomatic due to the absence of immune system activation.
- A full-blown respiratory infection within the setting of a severely immunocompromised individual.
Even if one were to accept the asymptomatic infection deceit this still does not lend legitimacy to the asymptomatic transmission deceit. Scientific understanding is built in minor steps with very rigid and narrow inference based on the limitations of the data. Every step of scientific understanding requires specific research to elucidate real-world dynamics and provide the necessary data to derive the mechanisms of pathophysiology. Brazen deceits and fantastical extrapolations are pseudoscientific and do not constitute legitimate science or scientific reasoning.
If one were to design a study to scientifically prove these outrageous claims one would have to do the following:
- Separate the claims into: a) proving asymptomatic infection is possible and b) proving that asymptomatic infections can be transmissible. These two aspects have to be studied sequentially and must be proven separately.
- Proving asymptomatic infection: this would require extremely large-scale studies whose methodology must include a design in which objective clinical measurements are taken along with the self-reporting of symptoms by infected persons. This would have to be combined with the confirmation of infection via laboratory tests with an emphasis on establishing the veracity of diagnosis. Such testing might include seroconversion (serology studies), blood samples (measuring virus titers), and/or cultivation of live virus from the relevant tissues. Ideally other inflammatory and immunological indicators would be measured in order to formulate a conclusion as to why asymptomatic infection is occurring.
- Proving asymptomatic transmission: this likewise would require extremely large-scale studies in which confirmed asymptomatic cases demonstrate asymptomatic transmission. Ideally, such scientific studies would include a large-scale study within controlled laboratory setting as well as a study demonstrating asymptomatic transmission in the community setting. The mechanisms of spread would have to be elucidated and such studies would require thousands of participants in order to have scientific validity. The studies would have to be replicable and include a robust scientific exploration of the proposed mechanisms of the observed phenomenon.
The claims of “asymptomatic infection” and “asymptomatic transmission” can be likened to the sudden and brazen unfounded claim in the field of physics that gravity no longer exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such bold, over-reaching, and fantastical claims require a massive preponderance of evidence as well as extremely well-designed studies which overwhelming provide data in support of such extreme claims.
Furthermore, a single study in-of-itself would be insufficient to establish exceedingly fantastical scientific claims but rather must be weighed against the total sum of the scientific literature. Needless to say, this has not happened and thus far no such valid scientific studies have been performed. Rather pseudoscientific claims have been laundered through the propaganda apparatus and presented as incontrovertible “proven” realities to the public and the medical community. Despite the lack of rigorous evidence, these claims have unfortunately been mostly accepted despite their egregiously absurd nature.
It must also be noted that extremely large-scale studies found only an extreme minority of cases (< 0.05%) which were deemed to be “asymptomatic infection.” The large-scale study did not attempt to elucidate the nature of the positive results within an asymptomatic context. Regardless, only a fraction of 1% demonstrated such findings. No reputable studies have yet been conducted to demonstrate transmission within the context of an asymptomatic infection. Thus far, the extent of the findings are consistent with well-established scientific principles and observed reality.
As with other canards of major psychological warfare operations, dirty tricks are employed to rewrite the perception of reality as necessary in service of the deceptions of an operation. The mainstream apparatus has been fully mobilized for the purposes of disinformation and the perpetuation of the deceptions of the operation with the repetition of baseless claims often being sufficient to enforce the acceptance of deceptions as being true. However, there are also pseudoscience creation schemes with the production of corrupted scientific literature which has been and will continue to be employed for all science-based frauds conducted on the public. The deceits and deceptions are presented with a veneer of legitimacy and scientific integrity while in truth debasing the principles and practice of medicine and science to a status no better than ridiculous pseudoscience.
In the case of asymptomatic infection and transmission, these deceptions have the intended purpose of:
- Providing the justification for the rollout of the biosecurity state apparatus and the increasingly oppressive totalitarian measures. Amongst the “measures” that will be rolled out are “immunity passports” and geofencing (geographic restriction of movement).
- Providing the justification for onerous and oppressive surveillance. The totalitarian surveillance of populations had already been in place prior to the Coronavirus PSO, however surveillance will be made to be “felt” as opposed to a silent unfelt process occurring in the background. The new measures are designed to be clearly understood as being authoritarian and totalitarian in nature. This has been seen with the “lockdown check-ins” and geofencing in different regions internationally.
- Psychological terrorism and social engineering. Populations have been instilled with irrational fear of their fellow citizens in general and the unvaccinated in particular. These fears are inherently irrational and are based on the delusions cultivated by the use of these deceptions. Nonetheless the social engineering of the citizenry is conducive to a divided citizenry and the engineering of compliance. Furthermore, the weaponization of social dynamics is conducive to the social coercion of resisters and the social ostracism and persecution of dissidents.
Similar to the “asymptomatic” deception in the degree of egregiousness is the reinfection deception. Immunity from reinfection is one of the most well-known and well-understood phenomena in clinical medicine. It is one of the oldest observed medical phenomena being observed since the beginnings recorded human history. Claiming that reinfection with the same serotype of a pathogen which has been successfully cleared from the body is suddenly a possible is the equivalent of stating that the planet Earth is now flat. It is an outrageous and patently absurd claim.
In order to appreciate how utterly ridiculous such a claim truly it is, it is important to review a few basics of immunology.
The immune system like other physiological systems of the human body evolved over millions of years into a highly effective defense mechanism against pathogens, toxins, and any and all assaults on the integrity of the biological self. The net result of extensive evolutionary pressures placed upon the immune system is a highly versatile and highly adaptive system which can adapt to a nearly limitless range of natural assaults. The human immune system has a fairly impressive track-record and while imperfect at conveying complete immunity to all the possible stressors which could be placed upon it, the natural biological dynamics ensure the propagation of the most advantageous constructs of immunity to successive generations. This preliminary fact must be stated first and foremost due to contemporary propaganda campaigns aimed at introducing a deceptive paradigm that mis-portrays human beings as being biologically “deficient” and needing to be “manipulated” by products of the pharmaceutical cartel in order to be “functional.”
As part of the normal function of the immune system, the immune system has an adaptive component which is able to respond to novel pathogens and toxins in a nearly limitless manner within certain physiological parameters. This adaptive component is comprised of cell-mediated and humoral (antibody-mediated) immunity. These systems allow for the neutralization of pathogens with antibodies and the elimination of cells which have become infected or have become defective.
As it concerns viral infections and the adaptive component of the immune system, the immune system responds to viral infections by the production of antibodies against the virus and the production of specialized cells which kill cells infected with the virus. The humoral response (antibody production) creates antibodies specific to the targeted pathogen which neutralizes the virus and allows for the specialized cells to “sweep up” and eliminate the virions from the body. The cell-mediated component is responsible for killing cells infected with the virus and is critical to eliminating any viral reservoirs and bringing the body back to an uninfected state. Once primed for a specific pathogen, these adaptive immune responses are permanent with the body retaining metaphorical “memory” of that pathogen. Several things should be specifically noted as it concerns these functions:
- Once a mature antibody response has been created by the immune system the body will have memory B cells of those antibodies for life. These memory B cells do not go away. Metaphorically, the body retains a “catalogue” of all the antibodies it has ever created during the entire lifetime of an individual. Selective antibodies from this “catalogue” are reactivated and the production of antibodies ramped up as needed based on environmental exposures to pathogens and toxins.
- The body possesses “sets” of antibodies for each specific antigenic epitope it has encountered. That is, for every molecular target of an antibody response, there are sets of slightly different and modified antibodies against that specific target. The immune system undergoes recombination and a mini-“evolutionary” process which selects for antibodies that are better and better at binding to their specific target. The more exposure of the immune system to that antigenic target the more this process occurs thereby producing slightly better antibodies that bind tighter to that specific epitope. Furthermore, these antibody “sets” (from the initial antibodies to the newer versions of improved antibodies) provide “flexibility” in being able to neutralize slightly modified antigenic epitope targets. This confers a mini- spectrum of antibody protection towards antigenic epitope targets which is often quite effective at dealing with moderate molecular modifications of the same target.
- The antibody response reaches a peak of antibody production during the initial infection with a virus. This peak of antibody production is necessary in order to eliminate the high concentration of virus that occurs during an initial infection and is critical in terminating the self-reinfection cycle. Under normal circumstances, the body will never again require such high concentrations as were necessary in order to terminate the initial infection. The antibody production dips from its high production to a baseline level. This baseline production slowly wanes over the course of years if the body does not encounter the antibody target again.
- The dip in antibody concentration post-initial infection is a normal response. Once an infection has been cleared, even if an individual is continuously re-exposed to the virus in their environment, the concentration of virus from these subsequent environmental exposures to the same virus are incomparably miniscule compared to the peak concentration of virus during a full-blown initial infection. These high concentrations of antibodies are critical for the elimination of an acute initial infection but are physiologically impractical on a permanent basis.
- Even if shortly after the initial infection there is a subsequent successful infection of a handful of cells from environmental exposure, such micro reinfections are unable to initiate a self-reinfection cascade due to the circulating antibodies and the primed immune response. The immune system will quickly target with humoral immunity and cell-mediated components the infection and eliminate it at a very early stage. Clinically, such micro re-exposures to the same serotype of a virus are clinically silent (no signs or symptoms) and the patient cannot transmit the virus.
- The body does not require a continuously aggressive antibody response to an infection that it has successfully cleared. Rather, it requires sufficient baseline levels necessary to prevent a self-reinfection cascade from occurring and an infection taking root. What this translates to is an initial peak of max antibody production followed by a gradual dip to a baseline level with this baseline concentration level itself slowly decreasing over time. If the target of the antibody is never again seen by the immune system the antibody can drop to extremely low levels though the memory B lineage is never completely lost.
- The baseline antibody level will fail to decrease if the body is consistently exposed to the target of the antibody. The baseline antibody production may even increase if there is sufficient re-exposure to its specific epitope target. However, once the immune system fails to “see” the target of the antibody, the baseline antibody levels will again begin to slowly decay.
- If the antibody level does drop below a certain threshold and the body is re-exposed to the same virus it has cleared, there can be a clinical “re-infection” with the same serotype of a virus. In such clinical reinfections, the infection takes root and the self re-infection cascades occurs. However, unlike an initial infection, the preexisting memory B cells against the virus become re-activated and begin to rapidly proliferating. Antibody production begins to increase in a matter of hours to days. The immune system is able to clear the infection often within a few days and always in less time than the initial infection. The clinical disease for such reinfections is far shorter and generally less pronounced than the initial infection. In such true clinical re-infections, the patient is infectious for a shorter duration of time than the window of infectivity for the initial infection.
- For the concentration of an antibody to dip below the threshold necessary for a clinical reinfection to occur depends on many variables. In general, for the gradual waning of antibody production to reach a sufficiently low antibody concentration necessary for a reinfection to occur takes greater than 20 years post- initial infection. Many variables determine what the threshold antibody concentration is for each pathogen and many variables determine the individual rate of decline of antibody production. Regardless, all things being the equal the normal physiological decrease in antibody production conducive to reinfection takes several decades to occur and for some individuals their effective immunity lasts a lifetime.
- All other things being the equal, unless the virus targets the immune system itself the immune response is an independent process from the mechanisms of the virus and the immune system is consistent in its functioning.
- The antibody response towards a natural infection is more potent, robust, and broad-spectrum than a vaccine-derived antibody response against a viral pathogen which is limited in spectrum and usually weaker in its potency. Furthermore, vaccine derived humoral immunity does not confer the cell-mediated component of adaptive immunity. As a general rule, the antibody response of vaccines is always inferior to the natural counterpart. There are many reasons why this is the case. Despite the current limitations of vaccine technologies, appropriately designed vaccines can produce effective humoral immunity which confer immunity to infection and avoids the morbidity and mortality associated with any given viral infection.
- In general, vaccine-derived antibody immunity can dip below the threshold necessary to maintain immunity towards infection in as little as 10 years or less depending on the specific vaccine. Many factors are involved in determining the longevity of vaccine antibody immunity. Regardless it is generally far less long-lasting when compared to the natural counterpart.
These basic principles are well-established scientific theory. The reinfection canard of the Coronavirus PSO essentially posits that in less than a year a person who had a “Covid-SARS-2” infection and successfully cleared the infection have become fully “reinfected” by the same serotype of the virus. Such a claim is suspect and contradicts the previously described principles.
It must be noted at this point that PSOs specifically inject magical and fantastical elements into the portrayal of the central ruse of the crisis with the increasing absurdity of the claims gradually and systematically driving audiences into outrageously delusional paradigms. The initiation of the “asymptomatic” deception and the “reinfection” deception during the Coronavirus PSO roughly represents the point where the claims veered from the highly implausible to the downright impossible. These claims metaphorically represent the ripping out and burning of entire chapters of science textbooks and brazen disregard of thousands of scientific studies and millennia of medical observations. At that juncture audiences and medical practitioners were driven into a realm of utter fantasy in which the principles of science themselves were to be freely rewritten as necessary in service of the overarching deceptions of the operation.
It is important to explore what such a claim implies. Reinfection in the manner in which it is being claimed has only a handful of explanations:
- One of the “diagnoses” of infection was a false positive.
- The reinfected individual had a sudden “immune collapse” and has become in a short period of time severely immunocompromised.
- The individual was infected with a different serotype of the same virus, a different species of the same virus family, or infected by a totally different pathogen. The new infection was not appropriately diagnosed as such and was erroneously attributed to the same serotype of the virus. This implies scientific and/or clinical sloppiness/carelessness or the intentional use of defective diagnostic protocols.
- The memory B cells have somehow “disappeared.” Thus far in conventional clinical medicine this can only be accomplished by administering certain monoclonal antibody treatments which non-selectively eliminate memory B cells. This would “wipe the slate clean” in terms of the antibody “catalogue” of the body.
- The antibody production plummets to extremely low concentration levels post- a natural infection to sub-threshold levels in a few months that would under normal physiological conditions take several decades to occur. Such unheard-of phenomenon outside of a context of a severely immunocompromised state would have to involve the selective manipulation of the immune system as it is not a natural phenomenon.
- The claim itself is an outrageous pseudoscientific deception founded on disinformation and having no scientific legitimacy.
Given the physiological impossibility of reinfection in the manner in which it has been presented, if there are unexplainable phenomena that appear to be extremely premature reinfection, such phenomena have to be thoroughly scrutinized and investigated. The most likely explanations are liable to be infections with other coronaviruses, misdiagnosis, or infection with a different serotype of the same coronavirus species.
Any complex or unusual clinical situations require skilled analysis and thorough explorations in order to elucidate the underlying causative factors. This would entail the utilization of the appropriate laboratory testing modalities and the proper use of scientific theory. Such analysis is exceedingly difficult given the reliance on questionable testing protocols and the pressures put on clinicians to practice medicine within an extremely limited paradigm of “understanding.” Such intentionally limited paradigms constrain clinical explorations and investigative efforts.
Deception: Disease of a Thousand Faces and Vague Symptomology
Viral infections tend to have clinical presentations that are consistent. The reason for this is quite simple: viruses infect very specific cell types and the immune response to a specific viral infection is normally consistent. The specificity of viruses for cellular targets means that they have tissue specificity and by extension organ/system specificity. It must also be noted that viruses are primitive intracellular parasitic constructs which lack the complexity of cellular microbiological life. Viruses generally have a much smaller genome and a relatively small number of genomic products they encode for. This relative simplicity and their specificity for cellular targets does not provide much flexibility or leeway in terms of their virulence and pathophysiology. By extension this necessarily constrains the range of clinical presentations.
In general, viruses can have a few major clinical presentations and a few rare or atypical presentations. In total, clinical pictures are usually limited to a maximum of no more than 5 or 6 distinct clinical presentations with the great majority of viruses constrained to 1 or 2 major presentations and miscellaneous atypical presentations. There are of course many clinical permutations that can affect the clinical presentation such as individual factors and the individual clinical context (comorbidities, coinfections, an immunocompromised state, etcetera). However, all things being equal, the constriction in terms of clinical presentation is a defining feature of viruses.
There are clinically distinct presentations that can occur from infection with the same virus. These clinically distinct presentations are usually due to localization of an infection or from individual host immune factors. In the case of localization, anatomical localization to a certain region of the human body can have clinical distinctiveness and be associated with specific and unique pathology and pathophysiology directly associated with the affected region. In regards to immune system idiosyncrasies, in certain situations one host will be able to clear an infection and produces one type of presentation while another host may be unable to clear the infection and the chronicity and complications produce different clinical presentations and sequelae unique to the indolence and chronicity of the infection. Regardless, a virus has a finite number of clinical presentations that are constrained by the parameters of the virus itself and the parameters of its host.
Different viruses that target the same cellular targets or the same tissues can produce clinical presentations that can be virtually indistinguishable from one another. Often such similar types of infections have only a few subtle and nuanced features differentiating them clinically. Such clinical presentations can often only be differentiated with the appropriate use of laboratory studies. Furthermore, some viral infections can be quite vague in symptomology owing principally to their lack of distinctive clinical features, the general absence of specific tissue/organ/system dysfunction, and the majority of the presentation being attributed to the generalized and nonspecific symptoms associated with viremia and inflammation.
This being stated, the strategy that is being employed during the Coronavirus PSO involves the imbuing of the presentation of the infection produced by the bioweapons as having virtually limitless clinical presentations. The range of presentations and disease attributes can be changed by the media at will in order to further the agendas du jour. This imbuing of fantastical flexibility into the central ruse of the operation is a core feature of the MTT. Such magical flexibility is critical to the engineering of a limitless deception with limitless potential to deceive. In turn this allows for the simultaneous furtherance of all the desired agendas of the operation. This general “magical flexibility” strategy has been applied during the Coronavirus PSO into 3 core deceits: the Disease of a Thousand Faces deceit, the vague symptomology deceit, and the asymptomatic deceit.
The Disease of a Thousand Faces deception can best be summarized as follows:
Disease of a Thousand Faces: the portrayal of these specific strains of coronaviruses and their subsequent disease in a manner which is magical, literally impossible, and possessing a limitless spectrum of disease manifestations. This artificial “flexibility” has several primary uses:
- It allows for the “asymptomatic coronavirus infection” deception and “asymptomatic spread” deception which are key deceptions used to justify the rollout of the biosecurity state and many of the totalitarian measures which have been implemented.
- It allows for people who have vague symptomology of unrelated causes to seek testing. The testing itself is significantly skewed towards false positives meaning that patients are liable to be misdiagnosed for a coronavirus infection upon unnecessary testing despite an incongruent clinical presentation. These false positive tests (many of which have no clinical follow up or confirmation of diagnosis) are then used to artificially inflate the coronavirus figures.
- It allows for the erroneous attribution to coronaviruses of the morbidity and mortality associated with other medical conditions or natural causes. Because little effort is made to clinically distinguish cause and effect, coronavirus “positives” in cases of morbidity and mortality due to other conditions is erroneously attributed to coronavirus infection themselves. Specifically, the measuring of fatalities based on mere “positives” regardless of the clinical picture significantly inflates the fatality figures.
- It provides cover for ongoing biowarfare. The illogical presentation of the disease and the absurd and magical disease parameters allow for ongoing biowarfare campaigns and targeted biowarfare attacks. Biowarfare attacks on disease-free regions with no discernible risk factors are excused as “outbreaks” from “asymptomatic spread.”
- It provides cover for the use of other bioweaponry and other warfare modalities. Because of the narrowed concentration and near obsession with diagnosing coronavirus infection and fatalities, any and all suspicious syndromes or odd constellation of signs and symptoms are liable to be wrongly attributed to coronavirus infections. The clinical search for other explanations or causative agents is simply ignored in favor of forcing false attribution to the coronaviruses. This is especially the case for vaccine injuries and deaths.
Furthermore, the illiteracy of general audiences as it concerns health and medicine has been especially abused in order to present the infection with the bioweapons with a nebulous vagueness. This nebulous vagueness is intended to stimulate the concern of audiences of being infected based on extremely common and extremely vague symptoms. Furthermore, the false attribution to the viruses of vague symptomology based on the engineering of false understanding assists in the promotion of the canards associated with both the acute infection as well as the supposed sequelae of the infection.
The process of clinical analysis must be described in brief in order to appreciate how the vague symptomology is intended to corrupt diagnosis and further the disinformation of patients.
To begin with, symptoms are phenomena felt by patients that cannot be visualized by a clinician while signs are physical manifestations which can be objectively seen, described, and measured. The constellation of symptomology and the manner in which they manifest are quintessentially important in the taking of a formal medical history, the conduction of a clinical analysis, and the formation of a clinical diagnosis. In general, it is vitally important to record all of the symptoms of a patient, how they arose, how they are interrelated, their idiosyncrasies, and all other pertinent information in regards to the symptoms.
Because the symptom constellation of diseases and/or the primary symptom of concern of diseases can overlap significantly, any clinical analysis must take into account the other possibilities as far as the underlying cause of the symptoms. This is critically important because oftentimes conditions which may mimic one another may be a) caused by completely different organs or systems b) are treated in completely different ways and c) the conditions can be vastly different in terms of seriousness and urgency of treatment. The other diagnostic possibilities are called the “differential diagnosis” and any competent clinician will attempt to ensure that a) the principal diagnosis is actually correct and b) that the differential diagnoses have been excluded by proper clinical investigation (especially if the differential diagnoses include serious conditions).
This being stated, not all symptoms are equal in terms of diagnostic value. There are certain symptoms which are almost uniquely related to a certain disease, there are certain constellations of symptoms which are classic to certain diseases, and there are symptoms which are exceedingly common and vague with virtually no diagnostic value. Furthermore, there are symptoms which require clinical attention which are exceedingly difficult to proper diagnose and require patient and thorough clinical investigation.
For example, fever is a vague nonspecific sign which is usually associated with inflammatory processes. As inflammatory processes can be triggered by a wide range of underlying causes, fever itself is a relatively nonspecific symptom. This does not mean that fever should be ignored in any clinical analysis, merely that it is ubiquitous and an exceedingly common sign and symptom. Its diagnostic value is usually extremely low unless there are unusual manifestations, idiosyncrasies, or other atypical presentations which increase its diagnostic value.
During the course of the Coronavirus PSO, two conspicuous examples of the vague symptomology tactic which attempts to confuse diagnostic reasoning can be seen in the attribution to the viruses of the symptoms of anosmia and low back pain.
Anosmia (the loss or absence of the sense of smell) is a nonspecific symptom usually of very low diagnostic value within the context of respiratory infections. The metaphorical “troubleshooting” as it concerns anosmia is quite simple: it is either due to damage to the olfactory nerve itself, damage to the Olfactory Receptor Neurons (ORNs), damage to the Cribriform Plate, or congestion of the nasal mucosa which prevents odorants from reaching the ORNs. Because any degree of excess mucus or fluid congestion in the nasal cavity has the ability to block olfaction, it is a ubiquitous finding with near zero diagnostic utility within the scope of respiratory diseases. Temporary anosmia can be induced by something as simple as allergies.
When anosmia is noted within a context directly related to respiratory infections, it is usually an insignificant incidental finding. This is because the predominant cause is nasal congestion and even if there is damage to ORNs, ORNs have the capacity to fully regenerate. By extension, any loss of smell is transitory with the olfaction sense returning with the resolution of condition.
However, one must analyze the implications of spooking audiences with the claim that anosmia is indicative of infection with the strains associated with the Coronavirus PSO. Autoimmune diseases and allergies are at epidemic levels and millions of people suffer from asthma and allergies. Furthermore, nearly all Upper Respiratory Tract Infections (URTIs) can produce sufficient nasal congestion conducive to anosmia. Having general audiences psychological intertwine anosmia with SARS-Cov-2 infection will predictably cause millions of patients to think that they are infected with the virus when they temporarily lose their sense of smell due to any of the numerous underlying causes. URTIs are exceedingly common and having patients get unnecessarily tested when they experience anosmia due to an URTI will predictably cause millions of people to get unnecessary tested. As the testing protocols have been slanted in favor of false positives this would ensure the generation of high numbers of “positive” results. Undoubtedly, an emphasis on this ubiquitous low-consequence symptom would inspire millions of people to get unnecessarily tested for the virus as well as generate anxiety and hysteria if they ever encounter this extremely common symptom.
The utility of this ploy should be quite obvious: it promotes unnecessary testing, unnecessary testing of a disease of low incidence with a test primed for false positives predictably leads to a torrent of false positives, and such false positives will be uncritically accepted and used in the calculation of epidemiological figures. This is the bastardization of the diagnostic process and the debasement of medicine in service of a fraud. Merely by manipulating audiences into being unduly apprehensive over a ubiquitous symptom that is nearly useless in its diagnostic value and which rarely has any serious clinical implications.
The same can be stated with the ploy of intertwining the viral infection with low back pain. This ploy was used early in the Coronavirus PSO and is functionally identical to the anosmia ploy. Low back pain is an extreme common symptom which can be caused by a vast range of underlying conditions. While the majority of cases of low-back pain are due to musculoskeletal or neurological issues, due to the breadth of conditions which can cause low back pain it can at times be quite challenging to correctly diagnose the underlying cause. Furthermore, low back pain is an extremely common symptom that is increasingly common as human beings age. Many millions of patients across the world suffer from low back pain and its commonality and ubiquity is akin to that of the common headache. To use the mass media to generate the mass perception of back pain as being associated with these viruses is to entice millions of patients (especially middle-aged and elderly patients) to seek unnecessary testing.
Furthermore, the very theory of the infection must be taken into account when analyzing the claims made in regards to the disease manifestations of this bioweaponry. The target of these coronaviruses is the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE-2). The current accepted understanding is that this enzyme is expressed in the following organs and cell types:
- Respiratory Tract: ciliated cells in the nasopharynx and bronchus.
- Gallbladder: glandular cells of the gallbladder.
- Gastrointestinal Tract: glandular cells of the small intestine and colon.
- Kidneys: cells of the proximal tubules and Bowman’s capsule.
- Heart: cardiomyocytes.
- Male Reproductive System: Leydig cells, Sertoli cells, glandular cells of the epididymis, and glandular cells of the seminal vesicles.
- Female Reproductive System: ciliated cells of the fallopian tubes, syncytiotrophoblasts and decidual cells of the placenta.
It is understood that only extracellular expression of the enzyme can be used as a molecular target for infection by the coronavirus strains. Furthermore, it is understood that the extracellular Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) expressed in the lungs is not a molecular target of these viruses. The basic theory then is that aerosolized virus can infect the nasopharynx and bronchi (if these cells express extracellular enzyme) and once an infection has become established, the virus can infect all cell types which express extracellular ACE-2.
As a result, it would stand to reason that the infection is predominantly an URTI with the potential of infecting selected tissues via viremia. This basic theory is in sharp contrast to the popular representation of the viral infection which is that of a lethal Lower Respiratory Tract Infection (LRTI). While atypical clinical presentations are to be expected, the standard infection, signs, and symptoms would be expected to arise from an infection of those selected tissues which express extracellular ACE-2.
The net effect of these tactics is a cognitive state in which audiences have a vague understanding of the virus and its clinical presentation combined with a disproportional, unhinged, and pathological fear of a nebulous near illusory threat. These intentionally ill-defined disease parameters allow for the public’s perception to be readily modified as necessary by psychological warfare towards desired temporary endpoints. This allows for the furtherance of any and all agenda requirements du jour without concern for rational limitations.
Deception: Long-Haul Covid
The morbidity associated with viral infections is determined by the virulence factors and biochemical mechanisms of individual viral species. Whatever these parameters may be, they are nonetheless bound by certain inescapable constraints innate to viruses as intracellular parasitic constructs. These limitations mean that viruses have a general pattern of morbidity that is markedly different from the morbidity associated with other communicable diseases. These parameters must be appreciated as they concern the deceptions of the Coronavirus PSO.
Unlike other communicable diseases, viruses do not generally possess the ability to cause generalized tissue damage in the manner that other communicable diseases can. Because viruses cannot mobilize the extracellular matrix for their metabolic needs, in general the extracellular matrix is left unscathed during viral infections. There are of course important exceptions to this general rule and there are viruses that can indeed cause lesions in tissues and tissue damage. For example, there are viral infections that cause lesions as a consequence of either viral aggregates or other tissue disturbances and there are indolent or chronic infections which can provoke chronic inflammatory responses which in turn can harm the integrity of tissues. These exceptions aside, viruses do not possess the general capacity for wholesale tissue destruction as seen by such disease processes such as bacterial gangrene. This general limitation of viruses means that damage tends to be limited to the cellular component of tissues. This damage with subsequent loss of cells can usually be quite effectively mitigated by cellular regeneration and is only limited by the capacity of each tissue to regenerate the lost cellular component.
Viral infection at the cellular level tends to follow one of two different patterns. Either virions bud off of the cellular membrane of the infected cells or the infected cell becomes engorged with virions and eventually lyses releasing the virions en masse. In the case of cell lysis, the infected cells are destroyed as a natural consequence of the infectivity cycle. In the case of budding, infected cells metaphorically become virus factories up until the point in which they are identified by the immune system and the infected host cell is destroyed via cell-mediated processes. In a successfully cleared infection, all cells which have been infected have been successfully identified and destroyed by the immune system.
Tissues have markedly different capacities for self-regeneration with some tissues having a magnificent ability to quickly and prolifically regenerate and other tissues having little to no regenerative capacity. In infections which are successfully cleared, the long-term consequences are essentially determined by the ability (or lack thereof) to replace the lost cells. Because most viruses infect tissues which have a capacity for cellular regeneration, the great majority of viral infections have little long-term consequences post-infection. In the majority of cases the cellular component of tissues which was lost during the infection will be successfully replaced. The greatest issue then for majority of viral infections is the immediate morbidity (and potentially mortality) associated with acute infection.
As part of the Coronavirus PSO, it has been vitally important to engineer irrational fear as it concerns all aspects of these viruses and their infection. This has included the “Long Haul” deception which attempts to portray chronic health conditions post-infection with these viruses. This deception is designed to achieve certain ends which include:
- Dissuading audiences from attempting to get infected on purpose in order to acquire natural immunity.
- Engineering irrational fear of getting infected with these viruses for fear of lasting health consequences.
- Dissuading audiences from living normal lives due to the perpetual fear of lasting harm.
- Engineering a profoundly irrational concern over getting infected that is not grounded on actual reality, statistics, probability, or science.
The Long Haul deception attempts to cultivate the perception of audiences of vague, ill-defined, yet frighteningly “severe” chronic post-infection health conditions. This is implied to be potentially permanent and life-altering in terms of its negative health consequences. Several points ought to be noted at this juncture:
- There are indeed viral infections which can have an extended recovery periods in which the individual has cleared the infection yet there are lasting issues of myalgia (muscle pain), malaise, etcetera. These symptoms can last for weeks to months post-infection. In all naturally occurring infections these inevitably resolves within 1 to 2 months post-infection.
- Certain infections can trigger autoimmune issues (especially in situations of molecular homology) which can have lasting health implications beyond the acute infection. These autoimmune issues are sequelae of the initial infection and are not dependent on continued infection by the virus to persist following the resolution of the infection.
- The loss of specific cell types which are not easily regenerated can cause the loss of functional units of different tissues or the permanent diminishment of the function and/or quality of certain tissues. The degree of the irreversible damage is dependent on the physiological parameters of the infected tissues and their capacity for cellular regeneration. Generally, these issues of irreversible cell loss are symptomless and unfelt by the individual.
These clinical realities must be contrasted with the contemporary context and the specifics of the Coronavirus PSO.
There has already existed for quite some time a health trend amongst certain demographics of the intentional infection with certain viruses for the purposes of acquiring natural lasting immunity. This has been especially seen with Varicella Zoster Virus (VZV) which causes chickenpox. This health trend has several major advantages:
- By controlling when it is that one gets infected one can choose to acquire the infection and develop the subsequent immunity at a time of one’s choosing. This is especially helpful with certain communicable diseases in which the age of infection significantly affects the probability of morbidity and mortality associated with the infection. Certain communicable diseases have far more severe morbidity, can have certain serious sequelae for certain age demographics, or the disease can be far more lethal at certain age ranges. In the case of VZV, chickenpox is a relatively mild disease for children but can be more problematic for adults. Acquiring VZV at an early age prevents the chickenpox disease later in life. Furthermore, such a practice safeguards the uninfected vulnerable age demographics by engineering herd immunity amongst the general population.
- Acquiring a disease en masse engineers herd immunity in a controlled manner. This can potentially be extremely beneficial for disease control. The naturally acquired individual immunity is far more robust and long-lasting with the subsequent herd immunity being far more effective.
- Intentionally acquiring an infectious disease of low consequence to a demographic allows the opportunity to properly prepare for the disease process. This preparation includes the acquisition of necessary medicines as well researching the nature of the pathogen and the disease process.
Given the stages of disinformation and the inevitable dissemination of truthful information in regards to the viruses involved in the Coronavirus PSO, it was an inevitability for a subsect of audiences to correctly deduce that it was potentially advantageous to intentionally acquire the infection in a controlled manner in order to develop natural immunity. This would have presented complications for the psychological warfare of the Coronavirus PSO because it would have represented audiences not having irrational fear of the bioweaponry of the operation. This as well as the need to create irrational fears as it concerns the bioweaponry preemptively necessitated the creation of specific deceits.
These dynamics would have likely resulted in:
- The realization that certain demographics (especially children and younger age ranges) had a mild disease manifestation and had virtually zero mortality associated with the infection would inspire certain parents to host “disease parties” and infect their children en masse. This would have conferred lasting immunity to the children and would have done much to engineer general herd immunity.
- Parents and families dealing with verified infections would begin to gain first-hand experience and knowledge concerning the virus and the subsequent disease process. These people would be far harder to fool with disinformation and psychological warfare campaigns given their firsthand experience and their desensitization to irrational ill-defined fear of the virus.
- Such a community driven public health practices would lead to proactive efforts on the part of the citizenry and the undermining of corporate and government interests. Such public driven solutions would inevitably unmask the deceptions of governments and the deceits that have been employed throughout the course of the operation.
The irrational fear of a nebulous ill-defined sequelae that is mysterious and purportedly permanent does much to dissuade patients and parents from considering options which would undermine the agendas of the operation and would inspire independence from government authority.
Deception: Weaponized Pseudo-pandemic and Moving Targets
The field of medicine has historically utilized terminology and theoretical frameworks which are tailored to the practice of medicine and are relatively unique when compared to the terminologies of other fields and professions. There are several reasons for this:
- The medical profession often involves matters of life and death. Mistakes can lead to preventable morbidity, iatrogenic injury, or death. Language must be hyper-accurate and exact with the full breadth of meaning conveyed quickly, efficiently, and in its critical totality.
- Many diseases processes mimic one another meaning that medical terminology must be able to accurately describe clinical pictures which often have few distinguishing characteristics yet have vastly differing degree of urgency, seriousness, treatment, and prognosis. The terminology itself is integral to the process of sound clinical reasoning.
Save for the continued penchant of the medical field for eponyms, medical terminology is an ever-evolving aspect of the profession which has historically been renowned for its simplicity of conjugation and its effectiveness at conveying meaning. The historical attributes of medical terminology merit mentioning:
- In general, medical terminology is intended to have little to no connotation and be purely used for accurate and exact denotation.
- Medical terminology tends to be hyper-accurate and is very exact as far as what it is describing. This extends to what a term is actively describing and what a term is intentionally not describing (what is intentionally being excluded by the use of specific terms). Generally, there is little ambiguity in medical terminology.
- Medical terminology does not concern itself with sensibilities and is intended to be neutral and detached as it concerns emotions, sentiments, and value judgements.
- Circumlocution, euphemisms, and grandiloquence is avoided as is emotional-laden, loaded, imprecise, and/or ambiguous language. The use of value judgements and the histrionic use of language is an unspoken taboo in the medical field.
- Medical terminology that has been sullied by connotation, undue emotion, or value judgements is often discarded in favor of new terms which are free from these undesirable attributes. Tainted terminology is problematic both internally between practitioners as well as the dynamics between clinicians and patients. The “sullying” of “clean” unemotional medical terms is most often an issue with medical terms that have found their widespread use amongst the laity.
- Terminology is intended to make the trained medical practitioner fully aware of what is being clinically described so that the clinician can correctly grasp the full implications of the clinical picture. Regardless of how negative, dire, detrimental, etcetera, the issues being described, the language itself must nonetheless remain precise and unemotional.
These historical aspects contrast sharply with the trends that been occurring in the medical field at least as far back as 2009 as documented with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) corrupt manipulation of their definition of the word “pandemic” and their changes to the rubric by which it is declared. That year saw the 2009 swine flu “pandemic” which demonstrated irregular behavior by regulatory and health agencies, corrupt dealings between health agencies and medical industries, and the abuse of the media for the purposes of psychological terrorism and engineering a public health hysteria. The numbers associated with this “pandemic” did not have the morbidity nor mortality necessary to be classified as an epidemic let alone a pandemic. The 2009 swine flu “pandemic” can be understood as a test run of the Coronavirus PSO with many of the same themes being re-implemented albeit in far greater magnitude and with the induction of lasting transformations both for medicine and society.
Brief context is necessary which defines the language of military and intelligence as well as the weaponization of language seen in psychological warfare. These unique modes of language use must be understood and juxtaposed with the historical paradigm of medical terminology.
As it concerns military and intelligence terminology, these terminologies are intended to have a functional accuracy akin to that of the medical profession. However, these terminologies are also designed with certain parameters which contrast sharply with the paradigms of medical terminology. These include:
- Internal indoctrination and propagandization. The terminology of these fields is engineered in such a manner as to reinforce a world-view and beliefs as well as skew cognition and schematic understanding in a manner that is beneficial to the controlling institutions, which reinforces loyalty to the command structure, and which reinforces the principal ideologies of the institutions. This innate terminology design renders the language unusable for unbiased comprehensive understanding or for independent and meaningful critical analysis.
- Psycholinguistically blocking the disturbing and reprehensible. Much as it concerns these fields deals on a regular basis with acts of extreme inhumanity, injustice, and cruelty. The terminology is designed in such a manner as to obfuscate, whitewash, and/or sanitize these realities. The conscious awareness of the full scope and ramifications of the actions that are being taken are liable to have psychological consequences to personnel and is liable to cause personnel to question their contributions to these enterprises. Much of the reality of what is being described is psycholinguistically blocked and the horrors that they describe sanitized with only the very minimal functional aspects retained necessary to describe what is required.
- Glib imprecise euphemism and deception. Institutions which plan and execute heinous criminal acts would be liable to incur an internal and external perception reflecting the nature of their actions. Much of the euphemistic language is intentionally evasive, circumspect, and designed to distort perception often in a manner in which a positive or professional aura is given to criminal and reprehensible acts. In this manner the language can be compared to political language in its aggressive intent to deceive. In the case of military and intelligence terminologies, this includes the profound self-deception of the personnel employing such language. Such intentionally skewed language prevents those utilizing loaded terms from fully perceiving and grasping the ramifications of what is being described. Often the net effect of using entire lexicons of such terminology is the engineering of cognitive state reminiscent of a psychiatric delusion.
This causes users of such terminology to:
- Have a selective awareness and perception of reality.
- Have cognitive “blind spots” as it concerns critical issues and the disregarding of unpleasant (often disturbing) realities.
- Be intrinsically unable to fathom the full breadth or fully analyze what is being described.
- Have intrinsic “computational failures” in logic and critical analysis.
- Have their logic, cognitive processes, and powers of critical analysis skewed towards desired conclusions and endpoints.
This type of terminology design is antithetical to the medical field which wishes to convey in a neutral manner the full extent of the information and which allows the clinician to objectively analyze the situation and formulate their own independent conclusions and professional opinions.
While this succinct explanation of military and intelligence terminology may seem irrelevant to the discussion of the Coronavirus “pandemic,” it is in actuality quite germane. The Operation Warp Speed in the United States saw a neofascistic initiative of private and public sectors to fast-track the development and rollout of experimental “vaccines” for these viruses. While this “operation” was short-lived, the efforts were spearheaded by the American intelligence and military services with the civilian Food and Drug Administration (FDA) taking the functional role of a silent observer rubber-stamping the decision of the military and intelligence agencies. This is merely a brief overt exposure of the management of the Coronavirus PSO as PSO-type operations are fundamentally managed by military and intelligence agencies which is essential to the massive mobilization of disparate elements towards the goals of an operation. Regardless of the intricacies of covert and overt dynamics, what is undeniable is the “militarization” of medical terminology and the incorporation of foreign paradigms and language design approaches to the fields of medicine and science during the course of the Coronavirus PSO.
As it concerns the dynamics of the language of propaganda and psychological warfare, this subject is one that is extremely vast and complex however the general goals of the weaponization of language in this field is quite simple and can be summarized as follows:
- Anti-clarity: weaponized language has a design strategy that distorts, skews, confuses, baffles, befogs, and bamboozles. Whatever the specific goal or design utilized, the language is not neutral, exact, comprehensive, nor accurate.
- Intent to Manipulate and Deceive: the weaponized language is intended to actively deceive the audience or those utilizing the terminology and manipulate their cognition and understanding towards desired endpoints.
- Decimation of Enlightened Self-Interest: the weaponized language is intended to facilitate harm directed at the interests of targeted audiences or facilitate harm against the interests of the users of the terminology. However, the specifics of these assaults against enlightened self-interests are intentionally obscured by the weaponized language with audiences and/or users generally oblivious to the infringements against their interests and unaware of the mechanisms by which their interests are adversely affected. Audiences and/or users of weaponized language are often recruited into championing agendas which ultimately devastate their enlightened self-interests.
It must be noted that the weaponization of language in psychological warfare is antithetical not merely to the paradigm of medical terminology but to the core principles of medical ethics. The intent to harm (or facilitate harm) inherent to the weaponization of language is a direct violation of the ethical principle of nonmaleficence and it is incompatible and repugnant to medical ethics as a whole.
Given the anti-clarity inherent to weaponized language and the militarization of medical terminology it is necessary to discuss what the term “pandemic” has historically meant and provide a more exact term for the intentional misuse of the word “pandemic” during the Coronavirus PSO.
The term “pandemic” has historically been used only for the gravest of outbreaks of communicable disease which meet certain criteria. These include:
- The outbreak of the communicable disease is from a single pathogen. The pathogen is often a novel pathogen although it can be of a preexisting pathogen or a novel serotype of an endemic pathogen which is far more virulent and/or deadly.
- The spread of the contagion tends to occur quickly with a high infectivity rate.
- Multiple epidemics occurring simultaneously, near simultaneously, or in extremely close temporal proximity.
- Epidemic outbreaks occur in disparate locations often in a geographically non-contiguous manner.
- Extreme morbidity and/or high mortality associated with the acute infectious process.
- The outbreak affects a significant percentage of the population in an afflicted region.
The word “pandemic” as a medical term is not an ambiguous term nor does it describe a subtle nuanced process. Rather, the word “pandemic” has historically been reserved for the rare pathogenic outbreaks which are able to quickly spread, infect populations over large swathes of the planet, and kill many millions of people across multiple countries. Such occurrences are quite rare and usually occur once a century. Normally, serious pathogenic outbreaks rarely go beyond the level of an epidemic.
It is important to further define what a pandemic is versus what it is not. Viruses such as the Influenza viruses have historically had infectious dynamics in which the viruses continuously cross (metaphorically “circumnavigate”) the globe. As they proliferate they accumulate mutations and by the time they reach the same region approximately a year after a virus has swept through a region the viral strains have often gained sufficient mutations as to escape the immune system of the previously infected. These new serotypes are able to reinfect the majority of the population which had been previously infected with the viruses. These seasonal phenomena affect millions of people with a significant percentage of the population becoming infected when the virus sweeps through a region. These seasonal phenomena cause billions of lost work hours, routinely strain public health systems, and are responsible yearly for the deaths of many thousands of people (usually the extremely sick, immunocompromised, and elderly). Despite these large-scale realities the seasonal flu is never given the label of a pandemic.
Other viruses such as the Human Papillomaviruses (HPVs) can eventually infect a large percentage of any given population. Certain serotypes of HPV are responsible for hundreds of thousands of cases of cervical cancer and deaths each year. Despite its high infectivity rate and the mortality associated with HPV sequelae, HPV is not considered a pandemic. It must be noted that HPV is an indolent infection and only a minority of women who get cervical HPV develop cancer. Despite this, given the ubiquity of HPV this results in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.
Given that epidemiology deals with massive numbers of infections and thousands (and at times millions) of deaths, a true pandemic still is something that rises far above the normal range of infection numbers and the normal range of morbidity and mortality associated with communicable diseases. At the level of epidemiology and society, a true pandemic is about as subtle as an open fracture or a bullet to the chest, i.e. it is an obvious and self-evident reality that does not need coercion or tricks to force the acceptance of observers of something that is self-evidently true.
Given the intentional misuse and weaponization of this term, a more appropriate term is necessary to delineate how the word “pandemic” is being used during the Coronavirus PSO. The term that will be used for this treatise is “weaponized pseudopandemic.” This is defined as follows:
Weaponized Pseudopandemic: a relatively minor outbreak of a disease whose true extent is intentionally obfuscated and mis-portrayed to audiences. The mis-portrayal is egregious and in a manner which grossly exaggerates reality to the extent of the portrayal borders on the fantastical and ludicrous when juxtaposed with objective reality. The disease outbreak may be fully illusory or may be a modest sized outbreak of a disease of low- to moderate consequence which is falsely portrayed as being a disease of high consequence. A campaign of psychological terrorism is always carried out on the public during a weaponized pseudopandemic event aimed at stoking irrational fears which are not based on material facts nor observed realities. There is invariably self-interested gain in the engineering of a public health scare and/or the official declaration of a “pandemic.” Obvious and undeniable irregularities by government bodies and health organizations are observed. Although the “pandemic” is made to appear as an existential threat, to the average individual the event is functionally a “phantom scare” or their personal experiences and observations are in stark contrast to the presented “reality” of the mainstream apparatus.
It must be noted that during a weaponized pseudopandemic the word “pandemic” is widely employed for the purposes of engineering a public health scare and to convince audiences that the described process is indeed taking place. This is especially helpful because the majority of persons will never actually observe the disease process of the “pandemic” firsthand and are liable to disregard the false health scare unless ominous threats and propagandistic repetition are employed. The intentional weaponization and misuse of the word pandemic renders it worthless as a medical term as it has been commandeered for psychological warfare purposes.
The term pandemic had been “standardized” for some time by the World Health Organization (WHO) with a satisfactory definition and parameters. The standardization of medical terminology by medical and health institutions and organizations would not normally be an unreasonable practice. However, within the context of the intentional weaponization of medicine and the commandeering of the field of medicine and all its accoutrements in service of authoritarian agendas, this practice of standardization of medical terminology is problematic to ethical clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists.
As it concerns weaponized pseudopandemics, the serious issue of the subversion of the paradigms of medical terminology was first clearly demonstrated in the 2009 weaponized pseudopandemic event which saw the WHO quietly change the definition “pandemic” in order to justify officially declaring the swine flu outbreak of that year a “pandemic.” There were a myriad of financial incentives for declaring the swine flu outbreak a “pandemic” to include guaranteed massive revenues for selected companies with preexisting contracts upon the official declaration of a pandemic. After the weaponized pseudopandemic event ended and the campaign of psychological terrorism abated, it was became evident to many in the medical field that the entirety of the event had been overblown (if not outright fraudulent). Rather than a serious investigation into the “irregularities” and conflicts of interests, this new paradigm became normalized with the changes in pandemic rubric kept for future misuse.
Despite the medical literature and professional op-eds that were published in response to the swine flu pseudopandemic, there were no long-term lessons learned by the medical community. Neither were there any repercussions for the WHO as an organization nor any long-term diminishment of its perceived legitimacy by the medical community and general audiences. Rather the parameters for the declaration of a “pandemic” have only grown laxer and more pliable and the WHO has become more overtly compromised as an organization. Functionally as a medical term, the official use of the word “pandemic” is currently nearly meaningless and its utility in the field of medicine has been wholly undermined. In its current form it is mostly a term of psychological warfare and propaganda devoid of the usual utility and integrity of medical terminology.
During the Coronavirus PSO, the term “pandemic” was been shown for what it has been commandeered to be. Especially during the early parts of the Coronavirus PSO the word “pandemic” was being intentionally repeated in typical manner associated with propagandistic repetition. Propagandistic repetition aims to:
- Force audiences to learn a deception and accept it as being true. This repeated deception is core to a psychological warfare campaign, it is intentionally kept very simple (and thus easy to learn), and is repeated ad nauseum to force neurophysiological learning processes.
- Override logic and subdue the critical thinking of audiences by the sheer force of ad nauseum repetition. This causes audiences to become psychological worn down and eventually mindlessly accept the repeated messages as being true as well as incorporate the deception into their psychological framework.
- Continuously evoke the emotions attached with that word and force the intertwining of concepts with emotions in a manner desired for the purposes of the psychological warfare campaign.
In practice this often involves the forcing of key words into sentences and speech in a manner which is excessive, overtly redundant, and logically unnecessary. While it may appear superficially illogical, the technique is quite effective at achieving its intended effects and forcing the acceptance of the deception which is being foisted upon audiences.
While the mere repetition of the word “pandemic” did much to imprint this false reality into the minds of general audiences, the full extent of the deception was far more complex. The deception clearly benefited from the prior loosening of the term “pandemic” by the WHO so that any desired pathogenic outbreak real or imagined could be labelled a pandemic if necessary. However, the full extent of the “pandemic” deception involved several broad deception strategies. These included:
- Positive-demic: utilizing testing and diagnostic strategies that would produce “positives” regardless of their veracity (i.e. engineering false positives).
- Fabricating and Engineering Data: utilizing strategies of data generation, collection, and analysis as necessary to engineer the desired data sets and conclusions.
- Incentivizing Desired Reporting: instituting a myriad of incentives as necessary to generate the desired reporting.
- Fantastical Statistical Modeling: utilizing wildly inaccurate (albeit strategically useful) statistical models which portrayed potential adverse outcomes not grounded in logic or reality (i.e. fantastical “pandemic” modelling).
- Moving Targets: utilizing metrics as needed to portray the desired “picture” and shifting to new metrics and measurements as needed for the narratives and agendas du jour.
- Shifting Definitions and Rubrics: rewriting definitions and tinkering with rubrics in order to forcibly classify and label things as necessary.
- Deceptive Narrowed Focus: focusing on the fear-inducing aspects in order to magnify the perception of morbidity and mortality rates when the numbers and actual reality did not merit such a distorted and exaggerated perception. The focus shifted as necessary in order to further the narratives and agendas du jour.
The net effect of these strategies has been highly dynamic deceptions which has shifted as necessary towards the endpoints of the Coronavirus PSO. Initially the focus was on emergency hospitalizations and sudden fatalities with this emphasis being shifted to ICU hospitalizations, then shifting to elderly mortality, then to “cases” amongst the elderly, then to “fatalities” amongst the general population, then to “hospitalizations” amongst the general population, then to “cases” in general, etcetera.
This was done for two principal reasons: firstly to keep audiences confused and secondly because as agendas were successfully achieved the narratives needed to be shifted in order to further the next set of agendas of the operation. The necessity to keep audiences befuddled should not be underestimated as having a perpetual moving target assisted in keeping audiences in a state of alarm and successufully blocked their ability to cognitively process the current situation and the disinformation they are being flooded with.
While the actual extent of the situation during this operation has been dynamic, the net effect of this deception has been to thoroughly convince entire populations of an exceedingly dire situation whose presentation is untethered from reality. The true extent of the situation has been by necessity a dynamic one and has not been identical in all regions globally. However, high profile cases such as Sweden (who mostly has not cooperated with the agendas of the Coronavirus PSO) has shown epidemiological figures which make the virus a disease of low consequence for Sweden. In other places which have been fully cooperated with the operation, the epidemiological figures have been rigged so extensively as to make them fantastical and farcical. In such contexts of calculated mendacity, measuring the true nature of the situation for general audiences is exceedingly difficult.
Regardless, the intentional misuse of the term “pandemic” as well as the abuses of medical terminology have been exceedingly important in cultivating the desired perception of audiences throughout the entirety of the operation.
Deception: Magical Safety Measures
Safety measures in medicine, especially as it concerns communicable diseases, is a quintessential aspect of the clinical practice of medicine. Containment measures for communicable diseases is fundamental to disease prevention and treatment at the individual level as well as disease control and eradication at the public health level. The known history of communicable disease control and prevention is quite a diverse history and encompassed everything from the treatment of the bodies of the deceased, the isolation of the infected, the specific treatment of the bodies of those succumbing to communicable diseases, the treatment of spoiled food, waste management, the management of contaminated water, etcetera. The degree and sophistication of these methods has mostly been based on the degree of understanding of infectious diseases and the scientific, technological, and engineering sophistication of any given society. The general trend has been one of the adoption of policies, standards, protocols, and laws as it concerns public health measures based on extensive observation and objective results. In general, these rules and practices have been based on logic and effectiveness.
The known history of communicable disease prevention and containment has been violently upended during the Coronavirus PSO for the purposes of furthering specific agendas, for psychological warfare purposes, and for the cultivation of the behavioral standard of blind obedience to any technocratic command regardless of how self-injurious or ludicrous it may be. Although these are the true reasons for crafting of the pseudo-medical pseudoscientific measures, great efforts have been taken to cultivate a general perception of these measures as being scientific and medically-necessary.
The acceptance of these totalitarian impositions has been greatly aided by innate behavioral dynamics in which both extreme fear and crisis situations promote blind obedience to authority figures and blind faith in behaviors and measures which are perceived to promote survival. Because fear inherently destabilizes logic and the rational cognitive powers of audiences, the strategic use of fear has been used to great effect not merely to engineer cycles of uncritical obedience, but to engineer a near religious deference to technocratic authority and totalitarian dogma. This engineered deference and obedience has been weaponized via behavioral conditioning and psychological warfare techniques to engineer profound gullibility and the total obeisance of audiences.
It must be noted that because audiences at a subconscious level are inhibiting from questioning the methods and measures which are presented to them as “necessary” for their “protection,” there is an unspoken general aversion to critically analyzing the actions by those in power purported for the “safety” of the citizenry. This of course is in-of-itself illogical for several reasons:
- If a measure is being done for the “safety” and “protection” of a peoples, those peoples must be fully informed as to the situation and the nature of the measures which the leadership wishes to employ. The peoples must give their informed consent for the measures that are being proposed. The peoples must be able to give their assent in a democratic manner and failure to gain this democratic assent constitutes the imposition of the leadership upon the rights and liberties of the peoples. This assent is especially necessary if the measures that are being considered are especially onerous, unusual, a deviation from accepted standards, and/or have a significant detrimental consequence for the peoples.
- It is the civic duty of the citizenry to scrutinize any measure or actions that are undertaken in their name or for their purported “benefit” or “safety.” Failure to do so is a dereliction of their civic duties. Such a dereliction (especially when committed en masse) represents an existential threat to the integrity of a republic. Any private or public institution or public figure which attempts to coerce the citizenry not to scrutinize such actions is de facto a threat to the citizenry and the integrity of a republic.
- The rhetoric of “safety and protection” is a well-established psychological warfare strategy used throughout human history for the purposes of the totalitarian or authoritarian transformation of societies. It is a well-known well-understood trick of tyrants and authoritarian institutions and repeatedly used to devastating effect against the rights and liberties of the citizenry. This rhetoric (more than the standard political rhetoric of corrupt politicians and governments) should evoke alarm on the part of the citizenry and must crystallize the understanding that the government and ruling establishment wishes to overstep their bounds and expand its tyrannical control over a society. By extension, “safety” and “protection” measures require more scrutiny and investigation than normal.
Given this context, the established pattern by many amongst audiences of unquestioning gullibility and obedience must be understood as being logically unjustified and counterproductive. Sentiments and subconscious inhibitions are insufficient arguments for the failure to scrutinize the measures that have been forced upon populations and which have had devastating effects on the citizenry. That an inhibition against questioning the totalitarian measures has been cultivated amongst audiences is to be expected. Nearly the entirety of the “measures” which have been forced upon populations are unscientific, not based on established medical practices, and in many cases highly illegal, unethical, and injurious. The pseudoscience and pseudo-logic upon which these measures have been based are especially flimsy and frail, metaphorically crumbling upon the pressures of even a modest amount of scrutiny. Hence the cultivation of a militant aversion to the scrutinization of these deceits has been necessary in the engineering of the opinion of the masses.
While many magical safety measures have been employed, a few of the major ones will be explored. These will include: “mask” wearing, “face shields,” “double-masking,” “lockdowns,” and “social distancing.”
Before delving into these magical safety measures, it is necessary to point out that several prominent countries involved in the Coronavirus PSO have had longstanding biowarfare programs which persist into the present. While the full breadth of the biowarfare as it concerns the Coronavirus PSO will be discussed later in this treatise, at this juncture it is important to emphasize that the applied science and applied medicine for pathogen containment is a fundamental aspect of any bioweapons research and the mastery of this preliminary area of science is necessary for such programs. Despite vast amounts of unpublished research into these specialized fields (as well as the development of highly effective protocols for containment) the Coronavirus PSO has involved the pretense that no such mastery, competency, protocols, or body of research is held by the world powers. The canard that nations are now learning the basics of pathogen containment has been seeded into the perception of audiences and has been uncritically accepted by many. Such ludicrous claims of not having the expertise or know-how for pathogen containment given the many decades of advanced research is ludicrous. It is even more absurd when juxtaposed with the conspicuous magical safety measures which are self-evidently preposterous.
The first set of magical safety measure that were employed were that of “lockdowns” or more accurately pseudo-medical quarantine. This was first employed in China with the “quarantining” of the entire city of Wuhan and was followed with the adoption of similar measures in many countries around the world. Such drastic measures would be expected to halt the spread of all communicable disease and cause a sudden plateau of all human-to-human infections. Despite such drastic measures, according to the official narrative the virus was able to escape the Wuhan quarantine and “magically” go global. In theory, such extreme measures would be expected to have been successful in the containment of the viral outbreak. However, such measures are far too extreme to be considered scientific or medically necessary. Previous pathogenic outbreaks of concern had been successful contained multiple times across the world with truly scientific measures and protocols. It should be noted that such extreme measures had never before been implemented nor considered in human history.
The initial excuse for the adoption outside of China of the pseudo-quarantine was that there were not enough ventilators in ICUs to deal with the hypothetical surge in ICU hospitalizations. This excuse shifted to the rhetoric of “flattening the curve” or diminishing infection rates. The excuses for the maintenance of the lockdowns was changed regularly becoming more absurd and irrational yet the changes in rhetoric did not change its utter lack of a scientific basis nor did it mitigate the disastrous impact it had on economies and societies.
The ”strategy” of pseudo-medical quarantine is innately nonsensical. If one were to attempt to visualize the total sum of viral particulates in an environment, the greatest concentration of viral particulates is always in individuals with an active infection with a miniscule amount of virus in an environment. Though the miniscule amount of infectious viral particulates in environments may be comparatively small, it can still infect an immunologically naïve host depending on several factors. As it concerns respiratory viruses, the infectious airborne virions may be carried for quite some distance before infecting a new host and (depending on the type of virus) may require a very low inoculum. There are a great number of factors involved in the infectivity of airborne viral particulates, however there is one constant: the containment strategies must be directed at actual infected individuals as they are the ones who fuel the spread of the pathogen. All other containment strategies are ancillary to this principle strategy.
The strategy for containment is involves the rapid identification of infectious persons, their treatment (if necessary), and (in certain cases) their temporary isolation. The isolation of noninfected (and by extension non-infectious) persons produces nothing. The only time that the isolation of noninfected persons makes medical sense is: 1) the person has been exposed and is possibly asymptomatic in the prodromal phase of an infection or 2) the individual is immunocompromised or is especially vulnerable against a specific infection which may require special precautions to involve protective isolation. Historical quarantines have worked by the first principle while the successful containment of novel dangerous viral outbreaks has been conducted by the rapid identification and treatment of infected persons and (in certain cases) the prophylaxis or isolation of known contacts. Of course, this basic strategy is meaningless when “measures” are designed for other purposes yet are excused with medical and scientific rationales.
A metaphor is helpful in understanding the context of the situation and the logic of containment strategies. Many types of fungi release spores into the air either in an active manner by forcefully aerosolizing and expelling spores into the air. If there were a species of fungus that had spores that were highly deadly to humans and an infection by the metaphorical fungi required a very low inoculum, the containment strategy would be very straightforward: eliminate active fungi from areas where humans are present. Any respiratory precautions necessary to be around aerosolized spores would have to be rated for the particle size of the spores and be appropriately fitted around the nose and mouth of the individual. Any additional or accessory precautions would depend on a myriad of factors of the fungi, its spores, and the disease process itself.
If one were to implement pseudo-quarantines across an entire city or geographical region for “containment” of such metaphorical fungi, such an action is either an unscientific overreaction or the action is an end in-of-itself. The quarantining of healthy people and the treatment of healthy individuals as if they were the metaphoric equivalent of active spore-releasing fungi is de facto unscientific and counterproductive to legitimate containment strategies.
It should be noted that the benefit of the spore-releasing fungi metaphor is that most people have witnessed or can readily view the aerosolization of spores by fungi and the visualization of this process assists in logical extrapolation. Most audiences would be able to readily extrapolate what kind of containment strategies would be necessary. Even a layman would be able to deduce that:
- While airborne spores are essentially impossible to visualize the further dissipate into the air, it is logical that the greatest concentration of spores are in the immediate proximity of the spore-releasing fungi and lesser the further one gets from the fungi. This relationship is a mathematical one.
- Infectivity probability directly depends on one’s proximity to an active spore-releasing fungus.
- The ability of the spores to travel depends on air fluid dynamics and other such pertinent variables.
- The ability to reduce the airborne spores in any given area would be a natural consequence of the ability to contain the active spore-releasing fungi. This would be the primary focus of containment.
- Because filtering air in general is problematic, the most efficient and effective mode of containment is the rapid identification and containment of any active spore-releasing fungus.
In juxtaposing this metaphor with the Coronavirus PSO, one can substitute the spore-releasing fungus to an individual who is infected and exhibiting respiratory signs of infection (i.e. coughing and sneezing). As already described, the asymptomatic transmission deceit of the Coronavirus PSO is not based on science or established medical realities. Consequently, any meaningful containment strategies must be aimed (identical the fungus metaphor) on active symptomatic infections. This requires the rapid diagnosis and treatment of the symptomatic respiratory diseases of concern. The isolation of clearly noninfected individuals would not be expected to yield any benefit and is liable to frustrate containment efforts. As has been previously stated, the isolation of the non-infected is only reasonable in specific cases for certain patient populations.
Furthermore, what would be self-evident even to a layman is that conservatively over 90% of the respiratory precautions taken during the course of the Coronavirus PSO would be useless against lethal fungal spores. Realistically this figure is closer to 99%. It should be noted that fungal spores are orders of magnitude larger than viral particulates meaning that meaningful respiratory precautions for viruses would require greater filtration systems than what would be necessary for fungal spores. Any health institution or organization promoting the use of overtly inadequate respiratory precautions is by extension peddling pseudoscience and promoting unscientific and grossly ineffective respiratory precautions.
Another useful metaphor is comparing infection with bullets and respiratory precautions with ballistic body armor. Infection must be functionally understood as a binary outcome, i.e. an individual becomes infected or individual does not become infected. There is very little in-between in terms of clinical outcomes. Metaphorically, one could visualize the binary nature of this clinical process as the relationship between a bullet and a human body i.e. either the bullet penetrates the skin and causes any combination of laceration and trauma or it does not. While this is an imperfect analogy (e.g. bullets that are stopped by body armor can cause blunt force trauma), it is nonetheless useful for the purposes of visualizing the stark difference in outcomes.
Respiratory precautions, like the ballistic countermeasures of body armor, have to be very specifically designed and tailored to what they are defending against. An individual piece of body armor’s success is based on its ability to stop the ballistics it was designed to protect against. Likewise, a respiratory precaution’s success is based on its ability to stop the inhalation of the particulates it was designed to filter. Peddling grossly inadequate respiratory precautions can be metaphorically likened to peddling grossly inadequate and patently ridiculous ballistic countermeasures.
One can liken the context of the Coronavirus PSO to a hypothetical situation in which a 16th century European imperialist peddles “magical” loincloths or “magical” cotton shirts to indigenous populations which are promised to grant protection from bullets to the wearer. Such a hypothetical situation represents the calculated deception by an unscrupulous individual taking ruthless advantage of the ignorance and lack of familiarity of his target audience with the of the science of ballistics and the uncompromising realities of bullet trauma. This is essentially identical to what is happening within the context of the Coronavirus PSO, the calculated deception of audiences and the peddling of magical measures which are well-understood as being grossly inadequate as any kind of respiratory safety precaution.
While the pseudo-medical masks may be useless as respiratory precautions, they are not useless within the context of the Coronavirus PSO. The true purpose of forcing pseudo-medical masking includes:
- Behavioral Conditioning: forcing audiences to engage in behavior in order to reinforce the paradigms and precepts of a deception. The repetition of the behavioral component of the deception greatly aids in the overall cementing of the deception in the minds of audiences and the reinforcing the tenets of the deceptions.
- Reinforcing Fear: engaging in protective behaviors against a dubious, unlikely, or illusory threats reinforces the elements of fear and apprehension to those threats and keeps the threat prominent and “alive” in the mind of audiences.
- Reinforcing Obedience: forcing audiences to engage in absurd behavior (especially those that are contrary to any logical sensibilities) reinforces paradigms of mindless and unquestioning obedience to authority.
- Subverting Logic and Reason: by engaging in overtly and self-evidently ludicrous and illogical behavior, audiences are forced to participate in the subversion of their own logic and reason. The repeated exercise in the absurd ultimately helps in the complete subversion of the rational sensibilities of audiences.
- Normalizing Totalitarian Impositions: the systematic encroachments on the rights of the citizenry assists in normalizing authoritarian exercises of power. Over time, the repetition of such behavior reinforces such paradigms which engineer the de facto pernicious “new normals” of a post-democratic society.
Pseudo-medical mask mandates can be likened to the hypothetical 16th century European imperialist mandating an indigenous population to use the “magical” loincloths for bullet protection. Or for the unscrupulous imperialist to recommend “double loincloths” for double protection against bullets similar to how the technocrat Anthony Fauci recommended “double masking” as a way to increase the “protection” of the grossly inadequate respiratory precautions. One would be able to clearly understand that the hypothetical European imperialist was attempting to psychologically subvert the indigenous audience with the magical loincloth deceit. However, contemporary audiences fail to grasp how the peddling of grossly inadequate respiratory precautions is psychologically subversive.
Furthermore, respiratory precautions are extremely specific to the context in which they are used. The same way that ballistic body armor is only of useful in the presence of live bullets, so too are respiratory precautions only useful in presence of dangerous airborne particulates. If there is no danger of inhaling an airborne pathogen then there is no benefit to the use of respiratory precautions. During the Coronavirus PSO audiences were encouraged to wear pseudo-medical masks in many obviously unnecessary situations and contexts. Audiences were convinced of the necessity of wearing pseudo-medical masks while alone out in nature, while in their vehicle with the windows closed, alone in their homes, etcetera. Wearing a pseudo-medical mask in such situations is about as sensible as an individual wearing body armor while taking a shower. The inculcation of audiences into such preposterous and paranoid behavior represents is the total subversion of any semblance of reason or sanity.
It should also be noted that the repetition of engaging in such behavior has a detrimental effect on audiences’ cognitive conceptions of science. This is best understood by taking the situation to its logical extreme. If audiences participate in unscientific magical protective measures the behavior is functionally no different than superstitions and magical protective traditions of past millennia. When this is compounded by intentionally mis-labelling such overtly pseudo-protective measures as “science,” it degrades the integrity of cognitive conceptions and paradigms of “science” within the minds of audiences. Anything (no matter how unscientific and ludicrous) can be considered “scientific” in the minds of psychological subverted audiences if they are commanded to view it as such by technocratic authority. And it must be noted that technocratic authority in-of-itself is unscientific and anathema to the true philosophy and principles of science.
Another obviously erroneous magical safety measure that was foisted onto international audiences has been the concept of “social distancing” or the “6 feet rule.” This essentially claims that maintaining a distance of 6 feet from all individuals at all times (regardless of infection status) would help prevent infections. Like the other magical safety measures this is pseudoscience and psychological warfare masquerading as medical science.
Aerosolization of viral particulates travels much farther than 6 feet and once aerosolization occurs it does not require the continued presence of the infected individual. Again, using the fungal spore metaphor, maintaining 6 feet distance from a spore-releasing fungus will not confer protection of any kind nor is such a small distance in any way a minimally safe distance necessary for the purposes of respiratory precautions. Furthermore, once a pathogen has been aerosolized it can remain aerosolized in a vicinity for quite some time. The exact time it remains aerosolized depends on many factors including the nature of environment in which the pathogen has been aerosolized.
Within certain parameters a pathogen can remain aerosolized in a general vicinity for hours. This is one of the reasons that many individuals can become infected with aerosolized respiratory pathogens during flu season while never actually having witnessed or been in the immediate presence of someone who was sneezing or coughing. Merely having been in an environment where an infected person sneezed or coughed (even if the two people never crossed paths and the infected person preceded the uninfected person in that environment by 30 minutes or more) can be sufficient to infect a new host. The implications of this are quite obvious: in situations in which one wishes to reduce infections of a respiratory disease of high consequence, individuals with the respiratory infection with active coughing or sneezing should (to the best of their ability) avoid public places while they exhibit the respiratory signs of an active infection. This is especially relevant to in-doors and enclosed spaces.
While “social distancing” is pseudoscience it nevertheless is of great utility for the purposes of the psychological warfare campaigns of the Coronavirus PSO. The actual intent of the social distancing includes:
- The presumption of contamination and infectivity of people who are visibly healthy thus reinforcing the asymptomatic infection and asymptomatic transmission deceptions.
- Trains audiences to view other people as potentially dangerous, life-threatening, and “contaminated.” Engaging in behaviors that reflect this paradigm help reinforce these delusions at the conscious and subconscious level. This engineers social aversion and antisocial tendencies amongst audiences which degrade the cohesiveness of society and seriously erodes social unity. The social disunity, especially within the context of the totalitarian transformation of societies, helps inhibit organized resistance to totalitarianism especially in the in-person context.
- Encourages people to avoid person-to-person contact which facilitates the digitization of the economy and a great many of the agendas at the core of the Coronavirus PSO.
- Engineers audiences to view normal people as a potential enemy or adversary which (by their very proximity or mere existence) has the potential of compromising their own individual survival. This causes audiences to view others with hostility and as a potential “enemy” or a “contaminated other” who may be a legitimate target for aggression, hostility, or persecution.
- Engineers hysteria and antagonism towards anyone who does not publicly conform to the authoritarian mandates and who (by the “insufficiency” of their compliance) is perceived as endangering others.
- It functions as a visible indicator of obedience and any half-hearted compliance to the mandates functions as a public and visible indicator of dissent.
There are many more such magical safety measures whose full exploration is beyond the scope of this treatise. However, a few of the most notable have been self-imposed social isolation, avoiding cash, “Face shields,” “sanitizing” foodstuffs, wearing gloves, unnecessary and excessive use of hand sanitizer, and discouraging hand-to-face contact. What the full sum of these magical safety measures share is their complete lack of any scientific basis and that they were all novel “measures” introduced during the course of the Coronavirus PSO that did not have an established history as medical precautions or public health measures. Given the quantity and egregiousness of such magical safety precautions, the net effect has been the “magicalization” of clinical medicine and public health and the untethering of these fields from science and logic.
Deception: Safe and Effective Pseudo-vaccines
Vaccine technology has historically encompassed strategies aimed at stimulating the immune system to produce an effective humoral (antibody-mediated) response against critical epitopes of pathogens. This antibody mediated immune component under normal situations is sufficient to confer effective immunity from infection (and by extension immunity from the disease process of the pathogen). The science and theory of vaccines is well-understood and in theory vaccination technology is a vital and critical component of contemporary medicine.
While the abstract theory of vaccines is sound, in the contemporary context the realities of vaccine technologies and their clinical implementation are neither simple nor straightforward. There have been worrying developments over the course of decades which have compromised the integrity of vaccine technologies, have led to vaccines becoming unnecessarily numerous in their implementation, and have allowed vaccines themselves to have become unacceptably dangerous. These contextual developments include:
- Indemnification: vaccine manufacturers (i.e. the Big Pharma cartel) have been given (in most cases) full and complete indemnity from any civil liability and (given their relationship with governments) functionally have full immunity from criminal prosecution for any vaccine-related malfeasance or criminal acts. As the liability for vaccines is offset to the government and to the taxpayers, this creates a clear and unambiguous moral haphazard which incentivizes the ruthless pursuit of corporate profits without concern for liability, safety, or effectiveness of their vaccine products.
- Regulatory Capture: the Big Pharma cartel has been effectively in control of regulatory agencies internationally which effectively makes these regulatory agencies an extension of the Big Pharma cartel. Rather than actually providing regulatory oversight, many regulatory agencies function as peddlers of Big Pharma products and provide false legitimacy to Big Pharma’s products and practices.
- Propaganda and Censorship: more than any other Big Pharma product, vaccines have been protected by ruthless propaganda and censorship which has helped maintain an aura of respectability despite the increasing trend to more dangerous and ineffective vaccine technologies.
- Corruption of Science and Medicine: in the pursuit of profits, Big Pharma has been increasingly brazen in their corruption of the scientific and medical communities. Furthermore, the Big Pharma cartel has been exceedingly proactive in churning out corrupt scientific and medical literature which gives false legitimacy to their products and is vital in foisting their products into clinical protocols. This causes the scientific and medical literature to become polluted with dangerous deceptions and disinformation and seriously degrades the overall integrity of these fields.
- Weaponization of Medicine: weaponized medical products are used to create a cascade of pathology which increases Big Pharma profits as well as to further oligarchic agendas. In the case of intentional iatrogenic injury or injurious side effects, these are understood to cause a chain of events leading to the use of more pharmaceutical products (an engineered dependence on pharmaceutical products). This creates a clinical setting extremely conducive to iatrogenic injury in which clinicians are unaware of the true risks of pharmacological and vaccine interventions. The uncritical use of such interventions facilitates the abuse and exploitation of patients.
These trends in turn have caused several general phenomena as it concerns vaccine science, the clinical implementation of vaccines, and vaccines themselves. These include:
- Cult of the Vaccine: the near religious support for vaccines and the treatment of vaccines as if they were sacred and sacrosanct (especially, above scrutiny and skeptical inquiry). This affects general audiences but is especially the case amongst the medical community.
- Product Myths and Obfuscation of Detrimental Realities: a general poorly defined mythology has been crafted in regards to vaccine technologies as well as the cultivation of a militant obfuscation of the detrimental realities of vaccine injuries. This “fog of obfuscation” is maintained by the failure to scrutinize vaccine technologies, the failure to investigate and elucidate the mechanisms of injury, and the lack of legal discovery from civil lawsuits which would have been brought against vaccine manufacturers.
- Limited Liability and Rigged Compensation System: especially as it concerns the United States, liability is capped and claims must be directed to a “vaccine court.” This “specialized” court system (which is apart from the regular court system) is skewed in favor of the state, severely limits claim payouts, and functionally limits the rights of claimants (i.e. inability to seek legal discovery from vaccine manufacturers, lack of transparency, inability to seek punitive damages from manufacturers, etcetera).
- Increasing Dangerous and Ineffective Vaccines: vaccines have been increasingly ineffective and increasingly dangerous by the very nature of their design. This is especially the case in relation to the adjuvants which are used in contemporary vaccines. Many of these adjuvants are understood to be toxic in-of-themselves but their pathogenic potential within vaccine technologies has not been comprehensively studied.
- Rise in Use: a stark rise in vaccinations has been observed especially post-indemnification. In the United States this evident from 3 childhood vaccines in the 1960s, to 7 childhood vaccines in 1986, to a current schedule that includes 70+ doses of 16 vaccines. This current schedule of childhood vaccines is expected to be expanded upon in the future due to the influence of the Big Pharma’s cartel on the practice of medicine and specifically due to the developments of the Coronavirus PSO.
- Unnecessary and Unscientific Implementation: vaccines (similar to other therapeutic interventions) should be administered based on a cost-benefit analysis. Under normal circumstances one would expect such administration to weigh regional epidemiological risk factors, individual factors, individualized risks associated with the disease process, and the statistical probability of morbidity and mortality associated with vaccines. Given the influence of the Big Pharma cartel, rather than individualized decision-making there are blanket vaccination protocols for entire populations untethered from actual epidemiological risk factors.
- Mandates: an increasing trend towards mandating vaccines in order to access basic services (most notably education) or to gain employment in certain sectors. This has been dramatically increased to the near total exclusion of unvaccinated persons from society and the economy during the course of the Coronavirus PSO.
As it concerns the incredible rise of vaccination, this explosion in the use of childhood vaccines has been complemented by a similar epidemiological explosion in assorted pathologies associated with vaccine technologies. Despite the correlation, great efforts have been taken to deny the correlation, deny causation, redirect attribution to other factors, and inhibit understanding of the mechanisms of injury of these technologies.
Furthermore, as it concerns vaccine medical decision-making, a meaningful cost-benefit analysis is made impossible due to the fact that vaccine injuries and side effects are suppressed and the true extent of potential harm is underappreciated (if not outright denied in most cases). No meaningful cost-benefit analysis can be performed within a context which erroneously presumes near total safety of increasingly dangerous products when clinical realities increasingly demonstrate rising rates of extreme adverse reactions and deaths due to recklessly dangerous vaccines.
Within this already troubling context, the Coronavirus PSO has seen the rapid and forceful furtherance of the most dangerous and unpalatable aspects of vaccines and their implementation. While the full extent of the vaccine issue as it concerns the Coronavirus PSO deserves a dedicated treatise of its own, this current discussion will focus on just a handful of the most pertinent issues as it concerns the new generation of “vaccine” technologies associated with the operation. Furthermore, this discussion will focus primarily on the context of the United States as it concerns vaccine development and implementation.
The Coronavirus PSO has used the propaganda mantra of “safe and effective” as it concerns the vaccines developed for the viruses of the operation in general but especially as it concerns the novel technologies that have been fast-tracked and rolled out at an unprecedented scale. However, every aspect of the history, development, and scientific theory of these new technologies is concerning and clearly demonstrates that these technologies are neither safe nor effective.
To begin with, the mRNA technology was researched at least a decade prior to the Coronavirus PSO and the mass rollout of the mRNA vaccines. During these initial trials the technology was considered to be ineffective and unsafe for the design of vaccines. The initial mRNA vaccine candidates did not make it past preliminary studies and no mRNA vaccines had been brought to market.
There are several intrinsic problems with the mRNA technology as it concerns vaccines which must be noted:
Introducing mRNA by merely coating the mRNA constructs with molecules which do not depend on receptor-mediated entry means that such nonspecific coated mRNA will be absorbed randomly and indiscriminately. The indiscriminate nature of the mRNA absorption is potentially extremely dangerous and problematic. Also problematic is the nature of the molecules which are used to coat the mRNA and facilitate its entry into cells. If the mRNA is foreign, the presence of the foreign mRNA and its expressed products represent a subversion of the strict delineation by the immune system of the “self” and “non-self.” This confusion between self and the non-self can provoke an autoimmune reaction against the cell types “infected” with the foreign mRNA. Furthermore, the mRNA would be liable to persist within cells and continue to be functional for an unspecified period of time with this period being influenced by multiple factors. Furthermore, it must be ruled out that the mRNA cannot under atypical circumstances be integrated into the host’s DNA with consequent mutagenic, oncogenic, or pathogenic potential.
This biochemical therapeutic strategy of introducing mRNA into cells makes sense within certain specific contexts although they are counterintuitive and potentially dangerous strategies for the purposes of vaccine technology. Inserting mRNA intracellularly to specific cell types is logical if someone is homozygous for a knock-out mutation and is missing a critical gene product. The introduction of mRNA coding a product foreign to the human genome can be potentially useful if that product is beneficial in some manner and adds new functions or properties to the target cells which are therapeutic. Regardless, if the mRNA is wholly foreign and not coded by the individual’s genome there is a high probability of an immune response against the foreign mRNA and/or the foreign gene product. The least concerning of these issues would be an antibody response against the foreign gene product but there is also a very high likelihood of autoimmune complications due to the immune system’s reaction against the corruption of the biological “self.”
Furthermore, inserting foreign mRNA which codes for foreign mRNA translational products wholly alien to the human genome is a step removed from simply introducing the foreign protein or biochemical product directly into the body. Thus far, complicating this process by infecting cells with foreign mRNA has not been demonstrated to be superior to simply introducing the proteins against which one desires to stimulate an immune response. This biochemical strategy is counter intuitive and potential dangerous for the purposes of vaccines. This is so for several reasons:
- The introduction of a foreign mRNA, especially that of a pathogen, will stimulate an immune response not merely against the foreign mRNA and its product but a cell-mediated response against the cells infected with the mRNA. If the mRNA is introduced indiscriminately this could mean an immune response against any tissue in the body as well as the precipitation of a chronic autoimmune response against healthy uninfected tissues. The pathogenic potential is vast and unacceptable high.
- A protein that is meant to be expressed within the cell has a certain pathogenic potential but if that pathogenic protein is designed to be indiscriminately excreted from the cell that pathogenic potential is greatly magnified. That extracellular free-floating mRNA product can function as a toxin and its expression in disparate tissues of the body can cause an unpredictable and wide range of undesirable effects.
- The likely mRNA product that will be chosen for an mRNA vaccine is the receptor of a virus. This expression of the receptor and its extracellular release will very likely lead to binding with the target receptors and the intracellular intake of those proteins into their cellular targets. This has a high risk for cytotoxic effects and oncogenic potential. The potential mechanisms would have to be studied ad nauseum for years to decades (with the detailed exploration of the mechanisms of pathophysiology) before such a vaccine technology can be considered safe for mass use.
- The production of antibodies against selected proteins will not necessarily be sufficiently robust to confer the desired humoral immunity. This is one of the reasons that conventional vaccine technologies include adjuvants to provoke a more potent or robust immune response to protein epitopes. In the absence of adjuvants to increase the humoral response to protein targets, the antibody response is liable to be insufficient for the desired protective effects.
- The production of antibodies is liable to be against inappropriate epitopes of the viral proteins in 3-D space. The production of non-neutralizing antibodies is potentially extremely problematic with significant pathogenic potential. Any inappropriate antibody production or non-neutralizing antibodies can potentiate the pathogen and dramatically increase the virulence of the pathogen which the mRNA vaccine intended to protect against. A qualitative analysis of the produced antibodies as well as large scale immune challenge tests are necessary to ensure that this will not occur.
As it concerns these new mRNA technologies with varied delivery mechanisms it should be noted that:
- Prior to the Coronavirus PSO the mRNA technologies were found to be ineffective as a vaccine technology as well as unnecessarily dangerous. With such an established history, forcing these technologies under an emergency pretext was well-understood to be dangerous chicanery.
- During the “emergency authorization” process there were clear signs of corruption and “irregularities” in the fast-tracking of these technologies. The “irregularities” associated with the forceful introduction of these novel technologies was sufficiently extensive that it clearly denoted coordinated corruption and criminality. Such irregularities and the rigged process of their introduction should evoke alarm and skepticism in regards to the legitimacy of any of the claims that have been made as it concerns these “vaccines.”
- There has been an explosion of reports on vaccine adverse events monitoring systems of hundreds of thousands of serious adverse events as well as thousands of deaths directly related to the vaccines. Most of these are not investigated by health regulatory agencies and intentionally remain “unverified.” The technology is claimed to be safe despite the statistics of adverse events provably showing otherwise. Under normal uncorrupted circumstances, such novel technologies would have never been mass introduced in an emergency situation with a preference over well-understood well-tested technologies. Even the mRNA technologies would have been introduced within a uncorrupted circumstance, the high number of adverse events should have led to the cessation of the rollout of these technologies and thorough investigations into the mechanisms of pathophysiology and injury.
- The dangerous novel technology will be slated to be forced onto entire populations with a new medical “paradigm” of periodic injections. These periodic injections will be forced upon populations. Initially this will be performed by coercion with threats of the loss of core liberties and rights of citizens who refuse the dangerous technology but it is likely that the final phases of this totalitarian transformation will include forcible “vaccination” of the unwilling.
- Many countries have excluded for “emergency authorization” traditional vaccine technologies that are composed of protein subunit or inactivated virus. This forces entire populations to take untested technologies with the intentional exclusion of the better understood, safer, and more effective vaccine technologies. This suspicious exclusion (when so many traditional vaccines have been made available in other regions of the world) should inspire serious concern and a guarded skepticism as it concerns the new technology.
It should be noted that there are currently 4 vaccine strategies for the viruses of the Coronavirus PSO: coated mRNA, viral vector mRNA, inactivated virus, and subunit vaccines. Currently, there are in total more available vaccines of the traditional types (inactivated virus and subunit) than there are of the novel technologies. However, these conventional vaccines are excluded in many countries across the world with many populations being forced into using the experimental mRNA technologies.
Not only is the mRNA vaccine technology provably dangerous, it has been accompanied by the general corruption of vaccines as a medical intervention. This is most clearly visible in the manipulation of the definition of what constitutes a vaccine and the metrics of its success as a medical intervention.
A vaccine has historically been understood to be a prophylactic intervention which stimulates an antibody response against a pathogen which is sufficiently effective and robust as to confer lasting immunity from infection to a specific pathogen (and by extension confers immunity to the disease process associated with the pathogen). The metrics for the success of a vaccine have been:
- Elicit the production of neutralizing antibodies which confer humoral immunity to the pathogen.
- Elicit a humoral response of sufficient strength which produces a high concentration of neutralizing antibodies with this concentration expected to experience diminishment over time. This lasting immunity is expected to last for decades with the success of a vaccine measured in the length of time until the antibody concentrations dip below the threshold necessary to confer immunity.
These historical metrics as well as the terminology surrounding vaccines has been wholly subverted during the course of the Coronavirus PSO. During the operation, the new metrics and language of vaccines are:
- Eliciting antibodies against the protein of a pathogen is sufficient to declare “success.” The actual quality and concentration of those antibodies is no longer relevant to the evaluation of the “success” of a vaccine nor a consideration in forcing its mass adoption.
- Immune challenge studies are no longer required to declare “success” and a vaccine’s ability to confer immunity from infection is no longer a requirement.
- “Lessening symptoms” and “reducing hospitalizations” are some of the new metrics of “success” as opposed to conferring immunity. These new “metrics” are fantastical reinterpretations of the underlying scientific principles.
- Conferring lasting immunity or even a lasting “therapeutic benefit” is no longer required. Ineffective “vaccines” can simply be forcefully reimposed ad nauseum in the pursuit of a fantastical metric of “success.”
- The failure to prevent infection, morbidity, or mortality associated with a pathogen is not referred to as a “vaccine failure” but as a “breakthrough case.” Such egregious failures do not affect the perceived “efficiency” or “effectiveness” in the new metrics of “success.”
- The morbidity and mortality associated with any vaccine is irrelevant. The only metric of “success” for the purposes of public health measures is the percentage of people who take a novel “vaccine” of dubious efficacy. The morbidity and mortality associated with the novel technologies is ignored or (when necessary) the blame is erroneous shifted to other causative factors.
- The morbidity or mortality associated with a pathogen in cases of vaccine failure is ignored in the metrics of “success.” This is especially the case if the “vaccine” can potentiate the virulence of the pathogen or if the vaccine compromises the immune system and the immune response of patients.
These new metrics represent brazen charlatanism and the bastardization of the science of immunology. To best illustrate how ridiculous this psychological warfare language surrounding the mendacious vaccine metrics truly is it is helpful to employ a metaphor.
We can compare vaccines to ballistic body armor. The success of ballistic body armor is measured in its ability to protect a great percentage of the time the area of the body which the armor is covering from penetration by the specific types of ammunitions the armor was designed to protect against. If all of a sudden, a new ballistics “standard” was created in which success was measured by metrics of “reducing symptoms of bullet trauma,” “reducing hospitalizations as a consequence of gunshot wounds,” or “reducing the worst case of hemorrhage associated with internal bullet trauma,” such metrics would be clearly seen as mendacious and intrinsically fraudulent. The ballistic body armor has one purpose: to stop the penetration of a ballistic missile. In the same manner, vaccines have one purpose: to potentiate the humoral immune system and confer protection from infection by a pathogen. Failure to accomplish this singular purpose and inventing fantastical metrics of success is shameless quackery and brazen pseudoscience.
It should also be noted that attempting to use such “metrics” of “success” represents the willful misrepresentation of the clinical sciences and the field of immunology. Antibodies do not reduce symptoms, they combat pathogens, toxins, and foreign constructs. The predominant antibody in the human body has two sides: one side binds to the epitope target and the other side functions as a receptor for specific cells which phagocytose (metaphorically “eat up”) the antibody-epitope complex. To use a metaphor, antibodies are the immune system’s key instrument with which to “hoover up” (colloquial expression) foreign particulates. The “hoovering up” process functions by physical laws of attraction between the antibody and the target epitope. In this sense, the antibody can be likened to a magnet which binds to its target with the subsequent phagocytosis “hoovering up” the epitope out of circulation.
In this sense, the metrics of success of an antibody are rather straightforward: does the antibody bind correctly to its target and assist in the “hoovering up” of the target or does it not. If an antibody is not doing its singular purpose effectively, the individual will get infected, the infection will have a disease process, and the body will only return to normal upon the production of the correct antibodies necessary for immunity. Therefore, getting sick from a pathogen is a direct indicator of antibody failure. The failure can be either qualitative or quantitative.
While there is a correlation between antibodies and symptoms, this is an indirect correlation and not a direct relationship. Signs and symptoms are a consequence of:
- The nature of the infection and the specific virulence and pathogenicity of the pathogen.
- The specific immune and inflammatory response toward a pathogen.
Pathogen concentration usually directly correlates with many of the symptoms associated with the disease process. The aggressiveness of the immune response is based on how much the specific pathogen stimulates an immune response and the concentration of that pathogen. In their ability to reduce the concentrations of a pathogen antibodies have an indirect effect on symptoms. However, this relationship does not always correlate and there are very important clinical situations which illustrate how antibodies are not coupled to the signs and symptoms of infection and demonstrate how misconstruing this relationship is erroneous and fallacious.
Stating that a vaccine antibody response is expected to “reduce symptoms” should be readily understood by anyone who is scientifically and medically literate as quackery. Any “scientific studies” which attempt to misrepresent well-understood medical and scientific theory should likewise be understood as having dubious integrity. In the same manner that a “scientific study” demonstrating that a novel external ballistic armor reduces the “worse symptoms of internal bleeding due to a gunshot wound” should be de facto understood as a canard.
The mendacity surrounding the claims of efficacy surrounding these new technologies is also noteworthy. Initially the vaccines were touted as being “nearly 100% effective at preventing infection.” In other words, they were touted as providing effective immunity as would be expected from conventional vaccine technologies. However, even from the very beginning in the product information for the emergency authorized mRNA vaccine technology there were included statements of metrics of “lowering symptoms” and other such imprecise language which made it evident that the “vaccines” were not expected to actually confer humoral immunity. This was pointed out in the alternative media spheres with the mainstream propaganda apparatus vociferously denying that the vaccines weren’t designed to confer immunity.
Once the “uptake” of the injections by the general population was as sufficiently high percentage, the rhetoric radically veered to the “lowering hospitalizations” and “lessening symptoms” metrics. These developments were expected and predicted by the alternative media sphere. Even with this radical departure from previous statements, the propaganda mantra of “safe and effective” has remained constant throughout the Coronavirus PSO. Even as audiences are now being made to realize that they will require “booster injections” on a regular basis forevermore, the mantra of “safe and effective” has not wavered and is glibly and uncritically believed by many amongst audiences. Even as the “metrics” of “safety” and “efficiency” continue to be radically altered in such a manner which is logically incompatible with any sane definition of safety and efficacy.
At the time of writing, many thousands of hospitalizations with “vaccinated persons” continues to occur demonstrating the utter failure of these “vaccine” technologies. Furthermore, each of the novel technologies has official reported injuries and deaths in the many thousands with number having risen rapidly since the introduction of these experimental technologies. A whole host of new and serious conditions are being reported, a pernicious “new normal” of the Coronavirus PSO, whose epidemic rise is being blamed on the most obvious scapegoats but whose correlation with the vaccine is undeniable. Because the pathophysiology of injury from these technologies has not been publicly studied (although there is reason to believe it has been privately studied by governments and industry), the absence of information is used as one an excuse for the “safety” of the technologies. From the data that has been emerging since the beginning of the rollout of these experimental technologies, it appears that these vaccines are very versatile as poisons or toxins and can do a myriad of detrimental things to the human body. However, what these experimental poisons are not doing is conferring the basic humoral protection one would expect from a vaccine technology.
Deception: Vaccine Deficiency – The False Superiority of Vaccines over Natural Immunity
From the very inception of vaccine technologies, the design of vaccines has striven to emulate as much as possible the humoral immunity derived from the immune system’s adaptations to the natural infectious process. Always the artificially-induced humoral immunity has been inferior in some manner to the natural counterpart although proper vaccine design can (in most clinical situations) be functionally identical to the natural counterpart. The obvious benefit of inducing artificial humoral immunity is in the conferring of protection from infection from certain pathogens whose morbidity and mortality are of sufficient concern that vaccination is the most logical course of action.
There are important reasons why natural immunity is superior to its artificially-induced counterpart. These include:
- The nature, quality, and quantity of immunological activation during an active infectious process. The extensive and prolonged activation produces the most robust humoral response that confers immunity for decades and often the entire lifetime of an individual. Furthermore, this qualitative superior immunological response is often directed at several important epitopes (rather than a singular epitope target in many vaccine designs) of the pathogen along with a mini-spectrum of antibody sets which can confer immunity to moderate variations of these epitopes.
- Natural infection in many infectious processes involves cell-mediated immunity and the priming of a cell-mediated response towards the infection. Most vaccine technologies do not stimulate a cell-mediated component of adaptive immunity.
- Infections stimulate and potentiate the immune system with the periodic challenging of the immune system increasing the “robustness” of the immune system. The avoidance of natural infections is associated with a weaker immune system, the predisposition to autoimmune conditions, as well as reduced general vitality in some extreme cases.
- Natural infections do not risk the sequelae and chronic conditions associated with the toxic adjuvants included in certain vaccine formulations. These toxic adjuvants can have serious detrimental consequences in the long-term. However, the pathophysiology and mechanisms of injury are poorly understood (as far as publicly available studies) so the true epidemiological cost to human health due to poorly designed vaccines is not truly understood.
This being stated there are a whole range of clinical situations in which vaccination strategies are clearly warranted over the natural infectious process. Likewise, there are many clinical situations in which the natural immunity is warranted over the inducement of artificial immunity. While an exploration of these specific contexts is beyond the scope of this treatise, it must be stressed that ideal clinical decision-making should take into account a whole range of issues and be tailored to the specific context of individual patients. There are indeed situations in which appropriately designed vaccines and vaccination strategies are the superior clinical choice; likewise there are situations in which vaccination represents a serious and unnecessary risk and should be contraindicated.
While clinical decision-making should be a relatively straightforward process, the contemporary clinical setting has been complicated by the corrupting influence of the Big Pharma cartel which has injected pernicious paradigms into the practice of medicine. One of the key inverted paradigms that the Big Pharma cartel has successfully promoted in recent decades has been the concept that patients are “deficient” in Big Pharma products and that correction of these false “deficiencies” are critical to good health. This is most evident in the false “drug-deficiency” and “vaccine-deficiency” concepts which postulate the need of aggressively implementing of medical products for “ideal” human health.
As far as the “vaccines deficiency” deceit, this has been specifically manifest by the explosion of vaccine use within the field of medicine for a wide range of infectious diseases regardless of the morbidity and mortality associated with each specific disease and without concern for the real dangers associated with increasingly toxic and ineffective vaccine products. As has been previously noted, given that vaccines have grown to become unnecessarily dangerous due to several prominent trends, in actuality the correction of this false “vaccine deficiency” translates in the clinical setting with the over-vaccination of patients with vaccines of dubious benefit and unknown safety profiles. This aggressive over-vaccination has in turn been crucial to the consequent explosion in chronic conditions and potentially lethal sequelae associated with toxic and dangerous vaccines.
This explosion in chronic conditions in turn increases the demand for medications and therapeutics. As can be expected, the Big Pharma cartel has long avoided developing or providing definitive cures for chronic conditions but rather peddles what can most aptly be called “disease modulators” which temporarily alleviate, control, or modulate chronic conditions. There are few commercially available permanent cures for many of these chronic conditions brought about by vaccine toxicity. This creates a dependence on medications and therapeutics for the management of chronic conditions and can be understood as the monetization of “good health” in which chronically afflicted persons must pay a medical fee or toll for temporarily having tolerable health. This general increase in demand for medications due to chronic health conditions massively fuels the corporate profits of the Big Pharma cartel.
During the Coronavirus PSO this false “vaccine deficiency” deception has been taken to extreme and illogical endpoints which brazenly defy even the most basic principles of scientific understanding or the most basic logical consistency. Such mendacious claims have included:
- The human immune system is somehow seriously “deficient” and must be “corrected” or “fixed” by vaccines.
- The immune system is incapable of handling most infectious diseases without the “assistance” of vaccines.
- Individuals with near zero risk of mortality and little to no risk of morbidity will “benefit” from dangerous insufficiently tested “vaccines” of dubious efficacy with unacceptably high failure rates.
- Herd immunity can only be achieved through dangerous mass vaccination with unproven experimental technologies which do not confer immunity from infection.
- The “immunity” of these dangerous “vaccines” (which do not confer immunity to infection) is superior to natural immunity from infection which does confer broad and comprehensive immunity from reinfection.
- Those who have been previously infected with these coronaviruses and have the best humoral immunity possible will “enhance” their immunity by being injected with these dangerous “vaccines” which do not confer basic humoral immunity to infection.
- The unvaccinated are a danger to the “vaccinated” and to society at large.
- Those who have acquired natural immunity are a danger to the vaccinated or the uninfected.
As can be readily surmised, all “roads” lead to the aggressive use of these dangerous experimental mRNA technologies regardless of benefit, the clinical need, or the specific context of the individual. This is obviously beneficial for corporate profits and the agendas of the Coronavirus PSO, however it is an unmitigated disaster for patients who are coerced into participating in a game of chance whose only reward will be morbidity of undetermined seriousness and/or death.
It is unfortunate that such ludicrous claims, claims which defy thousands of years’ worth of medical history and well-understood scientific facts, do not inflame the logical sensibilities of many amongst audiences. Repetition is the key to psychological desensitization and many amongst audiences have been desensitized by sheer repetition to such outrageous absurdities which would have been under normal circumstances obvious even to the laity.
It is also noteworthy the mental schism involved in the acceptance of these precepts while simultaneously accepting the “efficacy” and “superiority” of these experimental technologies. To reiterate, these novel classes of vaccines were publicly touted as being near 100% effective at providing immunity from infection while simultaneously the “fine print” in the product information stated that the technologies were “effective” merely at producing a reduction in mild to moderate symptoms of infection. This means that these novel “vaccines” were not even rated or qualified to provide humoral immunity as traditional vaccines have historical done. By any objective definition these experimental injections are not “effective” as vaccine technology. The actual language used in the corrupted “metrics” of “success” qualify these injections more as some sort of “prophylactic therapeutic” as their purported benefit does not even qualify as that of a true vaccine in the standard definition of the medical term.
By any measure or metric, the natural infection from these coronaviruses is superior in every way to the mRNA “vaccine” injections which have been forced upon populations. Indeed, any logical analysis of the rigged scientific process for the emergency authorization of these experimental technologies and a critical analysis of the actual product information should inspire great skepticism that these vaccines do anything medically useful whatsoever. At the very minimum, the wobbly language of the product information itself should readily make general audiences and medical practitioners acutely aware that herd immunity will never be possible with such ineffective injections. Furthermore, as these types of antibodies do not even have a therapeutic effect (as would be expected from therapeutic monoclonal antibody therapies), even these claims of therapeutic efficacy are questionable and are not based on established scientific theory.
The juxtaposition of these two realities is jarring and untenable. Natural immunity provides broad and effective immunity from reinfection as well as protection against many of the genetic “variants” (mutant strains) which have not mutated sufficiently to be novel serotypes. These “vaccines” are claimed to not provide immunity from infection and purportedly “function” as a weak “therapeutic” against signs and symptoms of low consequence in the most serious cases of infection.
Lastly, the very definition of what constitutes a “vaccine” was changed as the narrative concerning the mRNA technologies shifted. Internationally both lay dictionaries as well as the official definitions of medical organizations have changed the definition of the word “vaccine” to include these new overtly ineffective “therapeutics” which were no longer expected to provide immunity or lasting protection.
Deception: Magical Evolutionary Capacity
The evolutionary capacity of any biological construct is fundamentally determined by the biochemical fidelity of its genomic replication and the rate of genomic replication. It should be noted that the majority of genomic mutations either are detrimental or produce no effect with less than a 1% of mutations conferring an evolutionary advantage. The greater the fidelity of genomic replication (determined by the specifics of the biochemical machinery involved in the replication of the genome) the lesser the intrinsic evolutionary capacity of the biological construct. Conversely, the lower the replication fidelity the greater the evolutionary capacity up to a certain point at which poor fidelity will result in the accumulation of deleterious mutations and genomic instability which in turn compromise the survivability of the biological construct.
As it concerns pathogenic microorganisms and viruses, evolutionary capacity is a mathematical relationship which is influenced by certain factors. The factors which influence the predicted outcomes of such fixed mathematical relationships are themselves measurable. The mathematical nature of this evolutionary capacity means that one can very accurately predict the maximum genetic drift that any given pathogen is capable of undergoing under natural circumstances.
The obvious utility of such predictive capabilities is however useless within the context of biological warfare. The design and engineering of novel pathogens or the artificial manipulation of pathogens can produce advancements and advantages to pathogens far beyond the natural capacity to attain such evolutionary advantages. Indeed, the formulas of predicted evolutionary capacity is a major indicator useful in determining whether a novel pathogenic outbreak (or outbreak of an existing pathogen with significantly increased virulence) is natural or an act of biowarfare.
The context of the Coronavirus PSO is one which complicates what would otherwise be a straightforward analysis. This complication is one intrinsic to PSOs as PSOs involve massive deception and the building of grand overarching fallacious narratives which attempt to fully envelop the world’s perception of the weaponized crisis central to any given operation. The Coronavirus PSO involves the coordinated actions of governments to further the agendas of the operation alongside with biowarfare of yet undetermined scale. Under such a situation in which governments are criminal actors, one will expect “irregularities” and unusual phenomena which betray the true nature of the situation as well as the nature of the deceptions involved in perceptual manipulation. The utility of the predicted evolutionary capacity under such situations is rendered moot. Any accurate predictions and the highlighting of discrepancies between predictions and observed realities are an inconvenience to the narrative building of such operations and liable to be ignored or suppressed.
As it concerns the Coronavirus PSO and the coronavirus pathogens of the operation, there was initially no alarm over the mutation rate of the coronaviruses, no alarm over novel serotypes of the viruses, nor any alarm that the virus could have a problematically high evolutionary capacity. The early phases of the operation did not involve such narratives because it was critical to deceive the population into believing that the “pandemic” would be ended with mass vaccination and the attainment of herd immunity. Once this phase was completed and millions had complied and been injected, the narrative was changed and the “variants” deception was introduced.
The term “variants” itself is one that was not used in the field of medicine prior to the Coronavirus PSO but has been normalized as a medical and scientific term during the course of the operation. Traditionally in clinical medicine the variation in pathogens were classified by their phylogenetic relationship and by the immune system’s humoral response to those pathogens. In other words, the classification had virus families, virus species, serotypes of a specific species, and genetic strains of a species.
Within the Coronavirus PSO, the “variants” deception involves the artificial genetic drift in proteins or genome of the coronaviruses with any change (however small or insignificant) used to engineer alarm and further the agendas of the operation. Post-mass vaccination of entire populations during the mid-phases of the Coronavirus PSO there was the sudden “phenomena” of an “explosion” in new “variants.” The narrative then shifted that more injections would be required for “protection.” These specific deceits involve in-of-itself more bastardizations of the underlying scientific principles, however the “variant” deception is the principle excuse for much of the further phases of the operation. Eventually, regular injections will be foisted upon the masses to fight the artificial scourge (and mostly phantom threat) of “variants” with the fantastical evolutionary capacity of these pathogens (bioweaponry) being used as a constant threat and the impetus for the loss of patient’s rights, the wholesale rewriting of medical ethics, the loss of body sovereignty, and the regular imposition of toxic injections for the maintenance of reduced “privileges.”
The current phylogenetic tree of mutations is at the very least unnatural and represents evolutionary potential orders of magnitude greater than what would be possible under purely natural circumstances. There has been within the alternative media sphere legitimate inquiries that ineffective “vaccinations” which produce an ineffective antibody response may be placing a selective pressure for genetic drift on these coronaviruses. However, selective pressure places pressure on the course of evolutionary capacity but it does not accelerate its rate. The unnatural rates cannot be readily excused on non-neutralizing antibody humoral responses. Further studies will be required to elucidate what relationship if any the injections (with their subsequent inferior humoral response) will have on the selective pressures on the bioweaponry.
Deception: Forever Boosters
The humoral response decays at a predictable rate from the peaks of antibody response to any given antigen. The levels usually peak post-initial exposure to an antigen but can remain elevated based on repeated exposure to that specific antigen. If there is an antigen that is “seen” by the immune system on a regular basis the continued activation will mean that that specific antibody will remain elevated so long as the periodic or continuous exposure persists. At the time in which the immune provocation by that particular antigen ceases the antibody concentrations will once again begin to decay at a predictable rate.
There are practical reasons why antibody concentrations decay over time, the two most important are:
- The antibody concentration necessary to confer immunity to a pathogen is usually quite small in comparison to the initial antibody response necessary to clear a novel pathogenic infection. In most circumstances, a perpetually high antibody concentration in the absence of an active infection does not confer additional immunity and is functionally unnecessary and excessive.
- If the body were to permanently have high antibody concentration for each antigen it has ever encountered throughout the lifetime of an individual, the continued exposure to newer and newer antigens would begin to add up and eventually increase the protein component of serum which would adversely affect the blood chemistry. This would gradually begin to cause problems and in the extreme could be lethal.
In order to express the full “catalogue” of antibodies without disrupting the blood chemistry, it is ideal to have antibody responses be initially high in order to combat acute infections with the decay of that initial robust antibody response to lower concentrations over time. These lower concentrations of antibodies allows the immune system to simultaneously express its full catalogue of antibodies thereby functionally providing (most of the time) simultaneous full-spectrum protection without compromising the delicate balance of the blood chemistry.
Individual antibodies to specific antigens are selectively increased based on the repeat exposure to that specific antigen without stimulating the increase in production of other antibodies. This specificity allows for selected antibodies to remain elevated when necessary. The decay in antibody response is usually a predictable rate of decay and can vary between individuals. However, the rate of decay is generally predictable and relatively consistent.
The only major clinical issues that arise from these natural physiological dynamics is that over many decades the decay in antibody concentration can dip below the threshold necessary to confer humoral immunity. If this occurs, re-exposure to the pathogen can lead to a clinical reinfection. In such cases the preexisting antibody response results in a rapid ramping up of those antibodies and the proliferation of the B-cells which express those antibodies. The rapid increase in humoral response usually results in the reinfection lasting a much shorter period of time (on average 3 days) with a much shorter resolution of the infection as well as a usually milder clinical presentation (as compared to the initial infection).
What the threshold antibody concentration necessary to confer immunity is depends on the specific pathogen and the inoculum of reinfection. For example, high inoculums of bacteria from an infected wound would be expected to have a higher antibody threshold necessary for immunity to reinfection compared to the much smaller concentration threshold for most viral re-exposures. Regardless, the threshold should be understood as an average antibody concentration determined by various factors.
A key goal of the Coronavirus PSO is the introduction of yearly injection protocols for the general public. The reason for this is not limited to the corporate pursuit of profits; it is well understood that the toxic nature of these injections will have adverse health effects on increasing numbers of people. In order to justify the imposition of these new protocols it has been necessary to craft a new pseudoscientific “understanding” as it concerns the immune system and these new “vaccines” that justifies regular injections. This has included the assertion of an initial robust antibody response to the experimental injections with the sudden precipitous waning of that response within less than a year of full immunization. The tenets of this deception include:
- The pathologizing of the normal antibody decay (i.e. treating the normal reduction in antibody concentrations as abnormal, unusual, and/or pathological).
- The assumption that the ideal antibody concentration must be inordinately and excessively high at all times.
- That higher antibody concentrations confer far greater protection. Under normal circumstances there is little clinical difference for antibody concentrations which are above the threshold necessary to prevent reinfection and there is no benefit to keeping antibody concentrations inordinately high for prolonged periods of time. Generally, there will be no clinical difference between 2x above threshold and 6x above threshold in terms of conferring humoral immunity.
- The pretense that these coronaviruses have an extremely high threshold of antibody concentration necessary in order to confer limited “protection” or a “therapeutic” effect from the novel “vaccines.”
- The pretense that a humoral response that is unable to confer humoral immunity benefits from being excessively high. The antibody concentration is irrelevant if the antibodies are unable to confer humoral immunity.
It should be again reiterated that the mRNA “vaccine” technology was not tested to actually confer functional humoral immunity but merely to “reduce” a bare minimum of the signs and symptoms of infection. Thus far, studies have demonstrated that fully vaccinated persons are still capable of becoming infected, becoming seriously ill, succumbing to these viruses, and transmitting these viruses. This de facto means that the antibodies which are being produced by such methods are not conferring the most basic of humoral immunity and that these technologies are ill-suited for vaccine development. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the viral titers of the “fully vaccinated” when infected are comparable (and in some instances greater) to the viral load of unvaccinated people who become infected.
The logical question arises: are the antibodies from the mRNA technologies doing anything at all? If the viral titers between unvaccinated and the “fully vaccinated” are functionally the same during an infection, then the logical conclusion is that these antibodies are not assisting in reducing the viral titers and are therefore very likely non-neutralizing antibodies. In such cases, whatever concentration of non-neutralizing antibodies an individual may have are irrelevant as the antibody response is defective and neither confers immunity nor can it be expected to be “therapeutic” in any way.
The most common vaccine booster given in clinical medicine prior to the Coronavirus PSO had been the tetanus booster. The tetanus booster is currently recommended once every 10 years and it is considered prudent to administer a tetanus booster in cases when certain lacerations or open wounds have occurred and the vaccination status of the patient is unknown (or the last booster was over a decade ago). In the case of tetanus, the antibody concentrations necessary to neutralize the C. tetani toxin can vary quite significantly based on the inoculum of bacteria in a given wound. As the threshold necessary to confer protection from the C. tetani toxin can be quite high, in some cases, an optimum antibody concentration which can confer immunity to all natural exposures to the toxin is clinically prudent.
Even for the tetanus booster, it is well-understood that it is useless to provide a booster injection every year. Patients would receive no additional benefit from unnecessary and excessively high antibodies concentrations that far exceed those necessary for optimum humoral response. This sensible clinical strategy which is based on the logical extrapolation of scientific and medical principles is one that is antithetical to the Coronavirus PSO which desires to exponentially increase Big Pharma vaccine profits while simultaneously enforcing the onerous protocols of the biosecurity state paradigm.
Furthermore, there is internal inconsistency in the “logic” of this propaganda rhetoric which should be highlighted:
- If the humoral response from mRNA technologies is ineffective within 1 year or less, then they are to date the most ineffective of all “vaccines” ever used in clinical medicine. This ineffectiveness and inefficiency should preclude them from being used in any capacity and especially on a large scale. The historical basic standards for vaccines technologies have not been met and forcing quack vaccines on entire populations constitutes wanton criminality, the corruption of clinical medicine, and the bastardization of the clinical sciences. The conventional strategies for vaccination which are currently available (even for the coronaviruses of the Coronavirus PSO) such as inactivated virus, attenuated virus, or protein subunit vaccines with known effectiveness and safety profiles are the only logical choice in terms of strategies for vaccine development.
- The “science” behind the rapid and unnatural decay of antibodies from the mRNA “vaccination” strategies requires scrutiny. Scientifically coherent answers need to be provided as to why such methods produce an unnaturally high rate of antibody concentration decay. The decay itself is unnatural and the physiology behind such claims warrants aggressive investigation.
- The decay in antibody concentration is different between different people. The “studies” which have been conducted demonstrating such abnormally rapid antibody decay would still need to be weighed on an individual basis with decision-making being at the individual level and tailored to the individual patient rather than being overarching and oppressive public health policy with little basis in science. Clinicians and patients should be the ones making the choice with physicians ordering tests and verifying the specific antibody titers of an individual patient before ordering more rounds of experimental injections with dangerous side effects. Especially within a context in which the normal decades long research into such novel technologies is not available.
Deception: The Scapegoating and Defamation of the Unvaccinated
Historically, authoritarian or totalitarian agendas have relied on scapegoating in order to provoke mass hysteria and channel the engineered neurotic and destructive impulses generated during psychological warfare operations away from totalitarian centralized control structures and towards convenient and politically expedient scapegoats. These scapegoats are usually not chosen at random but rather the available options are usually carefully considered before a target of sociopolitical persecution is selected. Invariably, the persecution of such individuals and groups is politically advantageous and furthers the agendas of the state. The totalitarian systems of the 20th century were relatively consistent in their use of the tactic of scapegoating. There is a great benefit for psychological warfare operations in the redirection of negative emotions away from the abuses of a tyrannical state and towards other vulnerable parts of general society which has made this tactic a standard practice. These tactics continue to be highly effective at keeping abused societies hopelessly divided and preempts the crystallization of antipathy towards the abuses of the state.
The Coronavirus PSO, being such an exercise of totalitarian control required the use of such scapegoats. The obvious choice in such an operation involving the introduction of the totalitarian biosecurity paradigm was always going to be dissidents and resistors to the encroaching totalitarian policies. The most conspicuous identifiers for these dissidents are:
- The refusal to forgo the human right to body sovereignty
- The refusal to subject one’s body to experimental technologies.
- Remained unswayed by the psychological warfare campaigns and the refusal to accept the narratives and disinformation campaigns of the state.
Such resistors and the act of resistance itself was inevitably going to experience defamation and demonization. During the Coronavirus PSO, the state and media propaganda apparatus has engineered the sociopolitical persecution of just such individuals and movements. As is standard practice, this required the invention of fallacious “logic” to justify the persecution of those exercising their basic human rights and to invert the perception of audiences in such a manner as present the criminal acts of the state as benevolent public health policy and the resistors to such “enlightened benevolence” as a “danger” to the community.
Given the nature of the Coronavirus PSO, the most expedient marker for scapegoating would by necessity be the “unvaccinated.” This in turn required the invention of a pseudoscience to explain the “science” and “justification” behind the demonization and eventual persecution of resistors, dissidents, and activists. Like the rest of the pseudoscience of the Coronavirus PSO, these fallacious and fantastical deceits have no grounding in science or logic but are nonetheless accepted by medical professionals and the laity alike due to the susceptibility of audiences to psychological warfare techniques. It is necessary to explore the underlying scientific principles to delineate the fallaciousness of these fantastical reinterpretations of science.
An individual’s immune system ultimately only offers definitive protection to the individual with any second-hand protective effects to others being a result of the dynamics of herd immunity. While herd immunity has been irrationally elevated to the status as the definitive ideal for individual immunity and an individual’s safety, herd immunity dynamics are not all-encompassing cure-alls nor do they provide limitless protection to all members of the immunological “herd.” A hodgepodge of misunderstanding as it concerns herd immunity has been strategically cultivated with the underlying intent to deceive people into thinking that their individual immunity is only functional if other individuals are “vaccinated” and to goad audiences to pressure their social sphere into subjecting themselves to the toxic unproven concoctions of the experimental mRNA technologies.
This obvious point needs to be emphasized: an individual’s humoral immunity is a personal individual protection against the specific antigens which an individual has developed an antibody response against. It is first and foremost an individual clinical matter and a relationship of which the two most important variables are the individual’s immune system and the nature of the invasive pathogens which challenges the individual immune system. Great efforts have been taken during the Coronavirus PSO to add aggressive amounts of fantastical elements into basic scientific concepts which had previously been well-understood even by the laity.
In regards to these well-understood scientific principles:
- As a phenomenon, herd immunity occurs within a context in which effective and lasting humoral immunity can be gained either naturally or artificially. In cases in which a humoral response is not able to prevent infection or the disease process, the dynamics conducive to herd immunity are subverted and the protective benefits of herd immunity cannot be achieved.
- Herd immunity is not a binary outcome of “on” or “off” but an increasingly likelihood of protection which increases (with increasing group humoral immunity) towards the maximum herd immunity possible to any given pathogen at any given time.
- The primary beneficiaries of herd immunity are the immunologically naïve (uninfected or unvaccinated), those especially vulnerable to the infection, and/or the immunocompromised.
- In general, the benefits of herd immunity for those who already possess effective long-lasting humoral immunity is minimal to non-existent.
- The dynamics of protection from herd immunity are especially relevant at the regional and community levels at which the herd immunity’s dynamics are most impactful.
- Engineered artificially-induced herd immunity against non-endemic or extremely low incidence pathogens has little functional utility and little objective value. The objective value of herd immunity is dependent on a combination of the actual risk of infection with a pathogen and that pathogen’s associated morbidity and mortality.
- If a vaccination strategy cannot confer immunity from infection, then generally such a vaccination strategy cannot confer herd immunity nor by extension any of the benefits associated with herd immunity.
- If a vaccine cannot confer immunity from infection, the individual can still become infected. What the disease process will be in such individuals depends on the vaccine design. The benefit can range from the diminished virulence of a pathogen on infection (toxoid vaccines) to potentially a useless vaccine which does not prevent infection or diminish the disease process. In worse case scenarios, poorly designed vaccines may even potentiate and enhance the virulence of a pathogen.
- Poorly designed vaccines and/or poorly designed vaccination strategies do not necessarily produce results which are conducive to effective herd immunity and may give a false sense of security to individuals and the community.
- Poorly designed vaccines can subvert the acquisition of herd immunity and in the worst case scenario can increase the incidence of disease, enhance the virulence of a pathogen, and increase the morbidity and mortality associated with a pathogen.
- Pathogen eradication strategies are multifactorial and may be benefit from vaccination protocols. However, vaccination protocols are not a mandatory component of eradication strategies and proper eradication efforts have been successful in their absence.
One of the greatest issues as it concerns the concept of herd immunity is the misunderstanding by the laity as it concerns how these dynamics function. Herd immunity’s benefits primary benefits are in:
- Pathogen control, containment, and (potentially) eradication. This can occur only within certain specific contexts. Furthermore, herd immunity is not a prerequisite to achieve these ends but may be beneficial within certain contexts.
- The protection of the vulnerable especially in situations in which certain demographics are especially at-risk to the morbidity and mortality associated with a pathogen.
- The diminishment and/or elimination of the clinically significant morbidity or the sequelae of infection associated with a pathogen which has consequential impacts on public health.
These benefits are not all-encompassing “magical auras of invulnerability” but statistical figures and percentages of very specific and defined potentially advantageous outcomes. These statistical figures must be fully understood to grasp the potential benefits of achieving herd immunity to any given pathogen. It also important to emphasize that immunocompetent individuals with little risk to a given pathogen benefit the least from herd immunity.
When attempting to engineer herd immunity as a public health measure, a cost/benefit analysis must be conducted in order to determine the exact statistical benefits that would attained by engineering herd immunity. Such an analysis must weigh the interests of those with the least risk from infection with the interests of those with the most risk of infection as well as take into account the risk associated with any given vaccination protocol or measure used to engineer herd immunity. This is especially necessary because certain vaccines have a known statistical probability of exceedingly dangerous and serious side effects. Many of these adverse side effects can be irreversible, life-threatening, and/or lethal.
A poorly-designed cost-insensitive approach to engineering herd immunity can produce far worse and permanent consequences than those associated with a given pathogen. Any risk or danger to individuals participating in public health measures designed to engineer herd immunity must be fully disclosed to the participants. Historically (especially after the reprehensible human experimentation conducted during World War 2) the engineering of herd immunity has respected patient autonomy and the inviolability of patient choice.
Certain of the core deceptions involved in the Coronavirus PSO (especially implemented early on) made it very clear that even as herd immunity was metaphorically “dangled” in front of the citizenry of the world as a tantalizing endpoint and the definitive solution to the “pandemic,” this solution was to clearly illusory and unattainable by these experimental technologies. The reason why herd immunity was not going to be a solution to the weaponized crisis needs to be understood from two different perspectives: from the perspective of the reality of the Coronavirus PSO as an operation and from a perspective that holds as true the psychological warfare deceptions and disinformation involved with the Coronavirus PSO. From the perspective of the Coronavirus PSO as a PSO (as theoretically delineated in the treatise On Paradigm Shifting Operations), PSOs are extended complex, layered, and multi-stage operations in which an engineered and controlled crisis is used to force the transformation of civilizations. The “crisis” is not natural nor organic and the preselected “solutions” are intended to further the goals of the PSO rather than actually serve as a quick, efficient, and effective resolution to the crisis.
Even if one were to hold as true the full breadth of the deceptions and disinformation of the operation, the logical conclusion was that herd immunity as an endpoint was going to be unattainable or of very little objective value. The reasons for this include:
- Magical Zoonosis: the fantastical zoonotic hopscotch to various species of animals (especially common domesticated animals) means that immunologically all species who can be successfully infected represent part of the “immunological herd” and herd immunity would have to be extended to these species in order to provide the full effects of herd immunity. Animals would be a reservoir for the virus and their infectivity to vulnerable humans would eventually negate the protective humoral immunity of humans.
- Direct Effects of the “Safety Measures”: the unscientific “safety measures” that were employed (specifically the quarantining of the healthy immunocompetent individuals who had little risks associated with infection) would prevent the disease from running its natural course which would allow for the gaining of robust natural immunity. Those who had acquired natural immunity presented the most comprehensive immunity and would contribute to the development of effective herd immunity.
- Discouragement of the Acquirement of Natural Immunity: from the very beginning audiences were discouraged from attempting to host “virus parties” to intentionally get infected and thus develop natural long-lasting immunity. This was combined with disinformation about natural immunity itself and the propagation of pseudoscience to diminish the importance of naturally-acquired immunity. Thus far only naturally acquired immunity has contributed to the development of herd immunity.
- Reinfection: herd immunity is a phenomenon that occurs in situations in which humoral immunity grants effective immunity from reinfection. If the fantastical claim of reinfection were to be held as true then the protective effects of humoral immunity cannot block the individual from being reinfected (and thus not be a conduit for further infections) and neither the previously infected nor the “vaccinated” would be unable to contribute to herd immunity. This fantastical phenomenon would wholly negate the ability to develop herd immunity.
- Ineffective Vaccines: careful examination of the scientific studies which were used to grant the emergency authorization for the mRNA technologies (of dubious quality whose conclusions were highly suspect) showed that these formulations were not rated for conferring effective immunity from infection. Rather their “success” was established on the questionable metric of the diminishment of certain signs and symptoms. This fantastical reinterpretation of immunological theory aside, it was evident that the experimental vaccines would not confer immunity from infection and by extension would not contribute to the engineering of herd immunity nor any of the protective of effects of interpersonal immunity.
- Shoddiness of the Vaccine Technology: there have been credible reports of the vaccines being responsible for the diminishment of immune function as well as the potentiation of the virulence of the relevant viruses. “Vaccines” that compromise immune function would by necessity hinder the engineering of herd immunity. Furthermore, the vast number of reports of vaccine failures (euphemistically referred to as “breakthrough cases”) made it exceedingly evident that the vaccines were not conferring effective immunity. A vaccine that functions as a “therapeutic” and does not generate effective immunity is by definition not contributing to the dynamics of herd immunity. Analysis of the epidemiological figures also suggest that the vaccines were greatly potentiating the infection and that mortality and morbidity was actually increased in those vaccinated with the experimental mRNA technologies. The “forever boosters” paradigm also inextricably denoted that whatever claimed protective effects were supposedly conferred by these dubious experimental technologies, they are understood to be profoundly weak and short-acting meaning they are wholly ineffective at engineering herd immunity.
- Fantastical Evolutionary Capacity: the presented magical evolutionary capacity of the viruses (especially when combined with the magical ability to escape containment efforts) meant that even an effective vaccine would only engineer humoral immunity in the short-term to the current circulating strains of the viruses. The magical ability to “evolve” meant that newer strains which could escape the protective effects of adaptive immunity (i.e. new serotypes) would by extension make any currently effective vaccine obsolete within a short period of time. Thus, vaccination would not be expected contribute to the engineering of herd immunity or be effective at pathogen control or eradication.
Regardless of whether one analyzes the situation from an objective perspective or from within the fantastical deception matrix of the Coronavirus PSO, the elusive nature of herd immunity was inescapable. The purported solution of engineering herd immunity was ultimately nothing more than a marketing gimmick for the acceptance of dangerous experimental technologies. Once sufficient numbers of people were injected with the dangerous concoctions, the metaphorical “goal-post” was moved further away and ultimately the obedient masses were informed that their “vaccines” would not be able to generate the magical herd immunity necessary to end the weaponized crisis.
Within this context, the demonization of the unvaccinated is obviously illogical and irrational. However, their demonization is nonetheless necessary for the purposes of the agendas of the Coronavirus PSO. In truth, the “unvaccinated” have never presented any danger to the injected. Furthermore, the un-injected who had been infected with these coronaviruses are actually contributing to the dynamics of interpersonal immunity.
The unvaccinated do not contribute any more or any less to the evolutionary capacity of the viruses upon infection. However, it is still to be determined if those “vaccinated” with the ineffective experimental technologies apply selective pressures which could lead to the development of new serotype strains. Post-infection, the un-injected previously immunologically-naïve will develop effective long-lasting immunity which will contribute to the dynamics of herd immunity. This will have protective effects for the “vaccinated” who are not immunologically immune and whose disease process could be far graver due to the potentiation with the experimental technologies.
In the current context, the vaccinated merely represent a danger to themselves having allowed themselves to be injected with concoctions whose ability to harm appears to be quite serious. This ability to harm is roughly divided into two areas: 1) the ability to harm as toxic concoctions of various toxic elements whose long-term effects are still unknown and 2) the potential to potentiate infections with coronaviruses which could cause a more egregious or fulminant disease processes. Furthermore, if individuals are sufficiently gullible as to participate in an unethical mass experiment involving especially dangerous concoctions, it is very likely that they will continue to subject themselves to the periodic injections which will be foisted upon the world’s population and therefore multiply whatever serious side effects these injections have. The continued exposure to these toxic concoctions will predictably have devastating effects on the health of millions of those who subject themselves to these injections.
Within the context of the Coronavirus PSO, herd immunity is not a protective phenomenon that individuals should rely upon. Furthermore, they should understand that by extension it is their individual immune system versus the biowarfare campaigns that are the defining feature of the operation. As such, the preservation of their individual health, the robustness of their individual immune system, and (potentially) the intentional or unintentional acquisition of natural immunity from infection are the only factors which will affect them individually.
The “unvaccinated” (those who have exercised body sovereignty and are unwilling to subject themselves to unethical experimentation) do not and will never present a threat to the “vaccinated.” Furthermore, the naturally infected represent the only ones who possess effective immunity. Under normal circumstances their superior immunity would be prized in certain sectors and professions (e.g. healthcare personnel) and the conspicuous sociopolitical persecution of the naturally immune betrays the true intent of the agendas that are being introduced during this operation.
Matrices of deceptions (i.e. propaganda matrices) are a standard approach for psychological warfare campaigns that require exceptionally large frauds conducted on the public. The design of a propaganda matrix is done with great care as to the nature of the specific deceptions, their sequence, their interactions with one another, and their net effect. While a propaganda matrix does not need to possess complete internal consistency, the design of the interlocking deceptions must take into account:
- How the agglomeration of deceits and deceptions interact with one another in the cognitive processes of the target audience.
- How well the matrix confines cognition and perception as well as binds the logic of audiences to the desired parameters.
- How well the matrix leads an audience to the desired conclusions and endpoints.
The usual application of propaganda matrices is that of a static “cage of deceptions” which constricts and entraps the minds of an audience. In contrast, the propaganda matrices of PSOs are a far more advanced form of this technique owing to the advanced application requirements involved in these types of operations. Within the context of PSOs, propaganda matrices are kinetic and dynamic process which are ever-evolving and move through different temporary configurations towards the final configuration sets of an operation. Rather than static deceptions, a PSO matrices involve the continuous addition and agglomeration of deceptions with the occasional discarding of deceptions as needed in order to craft the psychological functioning of the masses du jour necessary for the furtherance of the current agendas of the operation.
PSO matrices involve continuous waves of ensnarement and an ever-evolving “cage of the mind” which continuously molds the psychology of audiences and mobilizes their collective functioning over the many phases of an operation. The function of a PSO’s web of deceptions can be metaphorically likened to pressures placed upon wet clay by the hands of a skilled potter; the malleable minds of the audiences are skillfully molded over time by the skilled application of psychological warfare into the desired shapes and configurations. In such a metaphor, the current propaganda matrix during the intermediary phases of a PSO is merely a temporary shape and not the ultimate paradigm configuration of the PSO. The sequential nature of the frauds is such that the paradigms and net psychological functioning of a target audience is shifted through different temporary stages with audiences accepting ever-increasing onerous impositions and totalitarian controls.
A core feature of any exceptionally ambitious propaganda matrix is the aggressive destabilization of logic and the rational sensibilities of audiences. As it concerns PSO matrices, this is especially important for inuring audiences to being continuously and dynamically deceived over an extended period of time. The destabilization of logic is especially necessary as the deceptions of further stages of an operation are exceptionally illogical and brazenly ludicrous when compared to the early deceits that are employed.
When combined with other psychological warfare techniques and tactics, the destabilization of logic allows for fast pivots and self-contradictory changes in policy within a relatively short period of time which are necessary for the furtherance of the agendas of an operation. Brazen self-contradictions can be performed without compromising public support for agendas antagonistic to the public interest and without incurring a loss of faith in the ill-intentioned and criminal leadership. Such incongruous and clearly self-contradictory policies and rhetoric would under normal circumstances clearly alert audiences to the intent to deceive and manipulate. However, a properly terrorized populace being subjected to the scientific methodologies of psychological warfare will not respond in the manner of a calm, grounded, and rational peoples which retain their ability to safeguard their enlightened self-interests.
As an advanced form of psychological warfare, PSO’s greatly rely on the engineering of a “momentum of gullibility” in which the waves of deceptions give metaphorical “momentum” and “force” to the deception process. For this process to be effective, audiences must be logically “off-balanced” and their capacity to reason subverted. A brisk momentum of gullibility must be engineered as the PSOs involve an astronomically larger quantity of disinformation and deception when compared to other types of operations. In order for audiences to accept the torrent of deceptions which (during the active phases of a PSO) are rained down upon audiences in a deluge which appears to have no end, it is necessary to engineer total gullibility and the total inurement to being deceived.
This process involves leading audiences faster and further into unreason with the accepting of greater and more egregious deceptions as time progresses. While the initial waves or sets of deceptions may be modest, each subsequent set of deceptions is increasingly egregious and fantastical and more pronounced in its ability to subvert logic. The increasing subversion of logic in turn aiding and greatly facilitating the ability to further and more egregiously deceive audiences. The interlocking nature of the deceptions also means that the acceptance of the preceding deceptions facilitates the acceptance of the subsequent more egregious deceptions. Each wave of deceptions generating increased “velocity” to the dynamic deception process and facilitating the acceptance of even greater and far more ambitious deceptions. This quickly pushes audiences into fantastical schematic understanding of reality and engineers magical thinking egregiously divorced from reality. In such states, no deception is too fantastical nor too ludicrous that it cannot be believed.
As it concerns PSOs it is also important to understand the construction of the “edifice” of mendacity; how the interlocking and interwoven deceptions are joined into an overarching superstructure of deception. The construction of this superstructure can be metaphorically likened to civil engineering in that there is a foundation, supports, and layers in the construction process of the grand deception. In this manner the sets of deceptions build upon one another in the same manner as layers of a high-rise building provide support for the levels above. Once a certain set of deceptions has been accepted as being true (a layer/strata of deceptions has been successfully constructed, accepted, and cemented into the mass psychology), it is generally integrated into the schematic understanding of audiences and not revisited or scrutinized at a later date. As such, the only major issue of importance is the acceptance of the current set of deceptions and their integration or “cementation” into the psychology of audiences as the acceptance of the current set is necessary for the continued construction of the grand deception. In time, even if a single deception is irreversibly compromised, it generally does not affect the stability of the overarching construct which (if properly constructed) remains stable within the mass psychology.
While a few individual deceptions (especially those in advanced phases) often receive the most scrutiny (as they are obscenely ludicrous and are the principle excuses for the most egregious policies), rarely are the interwoven mesh of deceptions analyzed individually and the grand deception dissected. This is unfortunate as this allows for a great many deceptions (especially the foundational deceptions) to be uncritically accepted and integrated into audiences’ schematic understanding of reality. The dissection, understanding, and rejection of many of these foundational deceptions is critical in blocking the construction the overarching superstructure of deceptions as it blocks the foundation upon which the higher strata of deceptions are built. The rejection of the foundations of the grand deception is necessary in maintaining the integrity of perception and a grounded understanding of reality. The inclusion of any meaningful amount of disinformation and deceptions into the schematic frameworks of audiences will have proportional effects on an individual’s perception, thought, and behavior.
The effect of the disinformation and deceptions can be likened in this sense to the binding of the literary Lemuel Gulliver of Gulliver’s Travels with Lilliputian rope; in-of-themselves the individual bonds of deception are weak and their effect is minimal but in the great multitudes in an overarching deception they form a perfect and insurmountable constraint on the psychology of the propagandized. The breaking of individual bonds (the deprogramming of discrete quanta of disinformation and deceptions) is necessary to loosen the grip on the mind and allowing for an individual to fully free themselves from the grand deception. This entails the identification and removal of the individual “ropes” (i.e. individual quanta of binding deceptions) and their removal from one’s psychological schematic framework. For many, this systematic self-deprogramming is difficult if not outright impossible with such individuals being irreversibly “bound” and in the thrall of the propaganda matrix.
It should be readily evident that a deception matrix that is especially vast and all-encompassing will produce states of psychological functioning that are exquisitely delusional. This untethering from reality is the inherent consequence of the accruement of serial deceptions which are increasingly egregious and ambitious in their intent to deceive. A small deception represents a small error in the individual’s psychological superstructure and understanding of reality; the more deceptions are agglomerated and incorporated into the psychological superstructure, the more the knowledge-base and gross understanding deviate from objective reality. As more and more deceptions are added into the individual’s psychology, the psychological functioning unambiguously enters the spectrum of delusions. The specific degree of the delusion is by extension determined by the quantity and quality of the deceits and disinformation. The more extreme and numerous the deceptions, the more extreme and profound the engineered delusional state of any given individual and the more extreme the effects on psychological functioning and behavior. In the extreme, the engineered delusional states of psychological warfare can be exquisitely pathological and debilitating with many states being delusional and psychotic.
While these aspects are common to PSO propaganda matrices, it is vital to understand the critical idiosyncrasies of the Coronavirus PSO. This operation has been the most ambitious in human history in its attempting to destabilize the foundations of critical fields of human understanding. In the abstract, the Coronavirus PSO can be understood as a declaration of war on the fields of science and medicine as well as the reprehensible transformation and debasement of the field of medicine into a weaponized and oppressive paradigm bearing little resemblance to its forebearer. The successes of the Coronavirus PSO should be understood for what they truly represent: the liberal rewriting of science into whatever fiction is necessary in order to further the desired malignant transformations and in order to provide the necessary apologetics for oppressive totalitarianism. This has entailed the bamboozlement of billions of the laity and millions of scientifically-trained medical professionals and their inculcation into paradigms of fantasy and absurdity.
To understand how the Coronavirus PSO functions within the historical context of contemporary medicine it is necessary to provide an succinct explanation of historical trends.
The field of medicine has been historically afflicted (especially prior to the 19th century) with charlatanism. While the distant past of medicine has had the likes of Galen, Hippocrates, and Avicenna, there have been for thousands of years ruthless and amoral charlatans who have preyed upon the naivety and ignorance of the laity in order to sell them useless wares that ranged from medically useless to toxic and highly dangerous. These historical abuses have given rise to terms and tropes such as snake-oil salesmen, mountebanks, quacks, and charlatans.
The 19th century saw the rise of modern science which (due to the interplay between science and medicine) led to the rapid advancement of the field of medicine. However, this rise occurring in the 19th and 20th centuries was not without shameful trends and the acceptance of ill-conceived medical theories and treatments which are currently understood to be reprehensible, illogical, and unscientific. Regardless, there remained a pattern of correction of errors and a general trend towards more scientific and advanced medical practices which markedly improved the effectiveness, efficiency, and scientific-soundness of the field of medicine.
The late 20th century saw the rise of the paradigm of “Evidence-Based Medicine” (EBM) which attempted to veer the practice of medicine towards treatment practices and protocols which were understood to be the best alternative based on the preponderance of statistically-sound scientific and medical literature. This paradigm was intended to supersede the previous paradigm of independent clinical decision-making by clinicians. This traditional paradigm of individual autonomy and independent clinical decision-making did not have a specific medical term; however, it had been the international standard in the practice of medicine. Independent decision-making ultimately was guided by a clinician’s training, their personal expertise, the sum of their clinical experience, the context and particulars of each patient, and their familiarity with the available treatments.
Initially, the novel paradigm of EBM was a revolutionary innovation; it was critical in bringing about certain benefits to the practice of medicine and was the impetus for the standardization of quality in the treatment protocols for patients. However, even as early as the introduction of EBM there were concurrent trends which portended the corruption of science and medicine as well as the weaponization of EBM. In the decades preceding the Coronavirus PSO, it became readily evident (especially to independent investigators) that the EBM paradigm had been commandeered for the purposes of corporate and government interests. This hijacking was not a singular phenomenon but part of a broader decades-long shift in the field of medicine which saw the dominion by various industries over the entirety of the practice of medicine. What had originally been the independent private affair between patients and physicians had been systematically transformed over decades into a highly commercialized, corporate and government dominated service in which often the least important parties involved are the clinician and the patient.
This weaponization is part of a myriad of shifts that collectively represent a tectonic shift in the fundamentals of the practice of medicine. In brief, these other issues include:
- Control over Knowledge Production: achieved via the dominion of corporate and government funding in clinical research and studies and the undue influence corporations have over scientific and medical journals as a consequence of their funding. This allows these sectors to influence the direction of research. This undue influence over medical and scientific journals also means that corporations can influence and block publication of studies which they deem undesirable to their interests.
- Corruption of Knowledge-Production: the increasing bastardization of the clinical sciences and the knowledge-production mechanisms in order to further protocols and paradigms which are beneficial to the pharmaceutical cartel, miscellaneous corporate interests, and governments. The increasing ingenuity of the corruption of knowledge-production make it far harder to elucidate conflicts of interests and often make it impossible to properly identify corrupt pseudoscientific literature which increasingly have an immaculate façade of legitimacy.
- Regulatory Capture: the capture by corporate power of governmental institutions which are supposed to regulate industry products and practices and their repurposing to further corporate ends and safeguard corporate interests.
- Holistic Corporate Influence over the Medical Field: the purchasing of influence by corporations in important subsectors and institutions critical to the practice of medicine. This includes medical and scientific journals, hospitals, medical schools, medical organizations and associations, etcetera.
- Introduction of Propaganda into the Practice of Medicine: systematically introducing and normalizing the use of propaganda and psychological warfare in order to influence both the professionals involved in the practice of medicine as well as patient populations.
- Sociopolitical Persecution: the use of sociopolitical persecution within the scientific and medical fields in order to silence individual’s critical of Big Pharma products and those who are a threat to government and corporate agendas.
These are merely the most germane trends relevant to the corruption of the evidence-based paradigm, however there are many other trends which have had a monumental impact on the practice of medicine.
The net effect of these trends can be likened to a reversion back into paradigms of historical charlatanism. Like the charlatanism of the past, this contemporary charlatanism uses many of the same tricks and strategies to engineer a positive perception of their fraudulent remedies and wares. However, unlike the charlatanism of the past this contemporary charlatanism uses the aggressive corruption of science in order engineer the near-flawless façade of scientific legitimacy. This is performed so well that the “scientific validity” of the expertly crafted corrupt literature is often nearly unimpeachable. As it concerns EBM, these trends of aggressive control over science and medicine mean that EBM cannot be considered a beneficial paradigm within such a corrupt context; rather EBM is functionally a paradigm for the standardization of treatment protocols beneficial to the pharmaceutical cartel. This paradigm can be expected to be the foundation upon which to expand centralization over medicine and the restriction of the independence of clinicians.
The corruption of science is complex but its two major facets are the production of copious amounts of corrupt “scientific” literature and the suppression of literature that contradicts the commissioned mercenary literature. A great majority of the corrupted “scientific” literature is sufficiently crass in its subversion of the scientific method as to constitute scientific fraud. When a copious amount of highly-advanced scientific frauds are used as the foundations of scientific understanding, that understanding is by necessity pseudoscientific. And when such pseudoscience is used to engineer legitimacy and the acceptance of fraudulent treatments, such “medicines” and “therapeutics” are functionally modern day “snake oil” and quack medicines. Of course, these are not the standard quack medicines of the past but rather fraudulent wares with a nearly impenetrable façade of scientific legitimacy whose venal faux-legitimacy is fiercely defended from being impugned by the considerable powers of contemporary psychological warfare operations.
The entanglement of deceptions of the Coronavirus PSO metaphorically represent a coup de grâce to what remained of the scientific integrity of contemporary medicine. All the previous subversions of science and medicine have been scaled up orders of magnitude greater than what they had been at the current baseline levels of corruption. Furthermore, novel and more ambitious subversions of science and medicine have been rapidly introduced which have corrupted core understandings which are part of the very foundations of the superstructure of contemporary medical theory. The corruption and metaphorical “bending” and “breaking” of these key principles and theories represents the violent destabilization of medical theory and the transformation of the practice of medicine into deranged groupthink and hysterical quackery.
The greatest travesty in such a situation should be readily evident, millions of physicians who have undergone extensive training in the sciences readily discard their scientific and medical training and accept paradigms which are anathema to the clinical sciences. Furthermore, many of these propagandized and feckless medical professionals remain conspicuously silent as the unambiguously malignant totalitarian paradigms are introduced into the field of medicine. Totalitarian paradigms which are sacrilegious violations of the sacrosanct ethics of medicine and which are reprehensible infringements on the hallowed rights of patients. What has been done in such little time can be likened to convincing the physicists of the world over the course of a year that gravity has ceased to exist and have them accept the extirpation of this core understanding from the theory of physics. Furthermore, to recruit such hypothetical physicists into being weapons against their own civilizations.
The only thing truly scientific concerning the Coronavirus PSO is the scientific application of psychological warfare. The multitude of pseudoscientific deceptions are elaborate scientific frauds bereft of scientific integrity. As they have been used to corrupt foundational principles of medical theory, these strategic assaults have rendered contemporary medicine into a tragic farce. Ironically, the true science (in both theory and application) has been that which concerns itself with the ruthless exploitation of the human mind. The massive psychological warfare campaigns of the Coronavirus PSO benefit from the sum of scientific understanding that has been gleaned from decades of research and field application. This includes preceding episodes of engineered hysteria as it concerns infectious diseases which occurred in the decades preceding the Coronavirus PSO and were conducted on a large scale via the mass communications. These smaller psychological warfare operations provided the necessary expertise which has been used to devastating effect to manipulate international audiences and the international scientific and medical communities.
The Coronavirus PSO has merely re-confirmed what is already known in sciences of psychological warfare:
- That people can be led to believe anything regardless of how ludicrous and outrageous it may be.
- That people can be led to betray their core values, principles, and ethics.
- That people can be led to betray those closest to them and become weapons against their own enlightened self-interests.
What audiences may believe of themselves, what they may think of who they are, etcetera, is immaterial. Nearly all can be bent and broken psychologically and reduced to hysteria, neurosis, delusions, and psychosis with the proper and scientific application of psychological warfare. That this has been so expertly done on the sacred ideals and philosophy of medicine is but a preamble to what will be done to civilizations and the world entire in the course of the 21st century.