Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

[Tuulikki]

I don't think they have any intention of ever letting us ditch the masks.

Covid: Doctors want to keep some measures after 19 July

Ministers are considering allowing fully vaccinated people to avoid isolation if exposed to Covid.

www.bbc.co.uk

This article from the BBC news in the UK tells us that doctors are advocating us continuing to wear masks after the "end of restrictions" day on July 19th. "Targeted measures" put forward by the professional body for doctors include requiring people to continue wearing face coverings in enclosed public spaces, such as shops and on public transport.

High levels of community transmission could also provide fertile ground for new, potentially vaccine-resistant variants to develop, he added.

And they are going to make sure they do develop.

Also - In the UK, 45 million people - 85.5% of the adult population - have now received one dose of a coronavirus vaccine. More than 33 million people - 63.1% - have been double jabbed, according to latest government figures.

I also read somewhere else recently that "herd immunity" cannot be achieved in the UK until....lo and behold....all the children have also been jabbed.

 

[Pictishbroch]

Keep an eye on the enemy.

Solving the challenge of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

To achieve herd immunity to COVID-19, officials need to focus on thoughts and feelings rather than distribution. Information and incentives will be key.

www.weforum.org

 

[SOTTREADER]

Could you please elaborate on your thoughts SOTTREADER?

Are you saying that the PTB have come to their senses wanting to counter their very own mainstream narrative?

I agree that the whole thing has gone too far and we do indeed risk losing our world but wasn't that the intention of our rulers anyway? We will be losing 'our world' so they can build their own from scratch?

At the level of decision making there's probably a whole array of big egos and we can only hope to that they are being vaccinated sufficiently.

I've just been observing what I think is a counter move to the mainstream thrust. This counter move seems to be driven by elements that I think can only be at PTB level. For example there are some scientists breaking through into places like Fox, there's scientists now challenging the main position and openly talking about how scientific debate is suppressed etc. There are also scientific studies being released indicating things aren't as the mainstream would have us believe. I think someone like Robert Malone is in the employ of the government, I think someone like Bridle as well has some support - I don't think these men are standing by themselves. I think there's a network building of resistance that cuts through countries and institutions.

On the flip side it looks like there's an acceleration of the agenda. Jabbing young kids, pushing for mandates, escalating the fear of the delta variant etc. This other side is way ahead and has the majority of the population hypnotised and under its sway.

So in the end it's still unclear whether this counter move will have any real impact at de-hypnotising the population given the grip of the hypnotic spell on the majority.

 

[psychegram]

Side note: I've also noted a weird propensity for NPCs to make this simulated, "Happy Fun and Wacky!" face which involves a wide open mouth, (like on this girl). I'm not sure, but I think it might have something to do with emoticons.

You're not the only one to notice that:

The soyjack (portmanteau of soyboy and wojack) with the gaping mouth, pretending to express mirth or amazement when in truth communicating barely hidden horror at his hopelessly dehumanized condition, has even become a meme:

 

[psychegram]

On the flip side it looks like there's an acceleration of the agenda. Jabbing young kids, pushing for mandates, escalating the fear of the delta variant etc.

The acceleration is a symptom of desperation in my opinion. They're working against some kind of clock. For some reason it is very necessary to the success of their agenda that vaccination be nearly 100%. They've encountered more pushback than they expected, with a large part of the population outright refusing to be vaxxed despite whatever stupid incentives or brutal coercive methods they apply. This lowers the chances of their vaccination goal being reached, in turn making it less likely that they'll reach whatever goal lies beyond that. On top of that, they know that every human refusing the vaxx is likely to be functionally immune to their other forms of conditioning and propaganda, which, again, spells trouble.

Remember the C's said a year ago that the freakout was driven by the emergence of an STO strain of COVID that makes those who catch it less obedient. Seems we're starting to see the results of that. So are the parasites and they don't like it one bit.

 

[Gaby]

Still trying to figure out the logical trap i seem to have fallen into regarding the "82%" calculation...

It's based on an observation that you quoted in the following twitter thread:

This graphic may explain it better:

I extracted the relevant image for discussion:



The second trimester of pregnancy goes up to the 26th week, and reported spontaneous abortions are at less than 20 weeks of pregnancy. The vaccine campaign started on December 2020.

If analysis of the entire study rules out the above assumption ("127 had vax in Trimester 1 and Trimester 2" from the v-safe Pregnancy Registry), then, carry on, nothing to see here. But if the above assumption holds true, even after analysis of the entire study's results, then that is where you get your super high rate of miscarriages in the first 20 weeks.

 

[Hi_Henry]

This is a video interview, from TLAV Ryan Christian, he interviews Dr. Malone, and let's him speak for himself, for some reason this interview left me with a bad taste in my mouth. He mentions he has long COVID and has taken the jab. Seems to me he is playing with what he calls "the conservative media". Seems to me he is advocating the Jab, in a round about way, but after all, he was part of the team producing mRNA technology.

Dr. Robert Malone Interview - Inventor Of mRNA Technology Censored For Speaking Out On Vaccine Risks

Joining me today is Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 injections, here to discuss his concerns over their safety, and the way in which these genuine concerns are being suppressed and outright cenored in real tim…

www.bitchute.com

Around the 36 min mark he discusses long COVID, he says it's "chronic covid" it's not a separate disease, it's a cluster of diseases, it's a cluster of syndromes, it's not one syndrome when he is talking about the symptoms reminds me of some of the reported side effects of the jab. He mentions neurological damage, involving the brain stem and also cerebrovascular events. Makes me wonder, is the manifestation in some individuals that initially became infected in the lab leak virus, that has been reported, and also, if this was the prototype of the mRNA vaccines now in production. Now I will remove my tin foil hat.

There is not much really new, in what he presents., it has been documented previously by many other researchers, he mentions the Brett Weinstein interview, which BTW, Whitney Webb, has mentioned that she is dubious regarding what the Weinstein brothers report.

He gave a strange analogy, during the close of the interview, he discusses human experimentation during the nazi era, he said that human experiments were (no mention of atrocities) for cold adaption, to allow troops to function in the northern cold climates, sounds so benign. Seems to me that he is playing the audience. And indirectly mentions the psychology of crowds, reminds me of Gustav Le Bonn's book The Crowd. Don't t get me wrong, he does provide insight into the machinations behind the scenes. just my impression.

Dr. Robert Malone Interview - Inventor Of mRNA Technology Censored For Speaking Out On Vaccine Risks

Joining me today is Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 injections, here to discuss his concerns over their safety, and the way in which these genuine concerns are being suppressed and outright cenored in real tim…

www.bitchute.com

I listened as carefully as I could to what Dr. Malone was saying. I was with him up to the point where he started to say that the risk/benefit of getting the "gene therapy" is favorable for those 65 and older. That to me is not right, and available data shows this. That was crossing the Red Line for me.

I would love to see what he is basing his opinion on that position. Being a scientist, he should have no problem understanding the simple fact that you do not pump an experimental substance that was never used before into millions (if not billions) of people without understanding the LONG TERM EFFECTS. In the middle of 2020 sufficient data was available to show that SARS-Cov2 was not Ebola requiring extreme measures, Sweden was the prime example of this.

If, and I mean "if" as in I have my doubts, he did get the injection, his explanation of why he did it in a way makes sense to me, he needs to travel else he is cut off. However, in this interview, he could have stayed away from making recommendations as to what he thinks people should do. Up to that point, I thought he was being as neutral as possible, something he suggested he needs to do when working for the government. My impression is that he has been this way for years, thus is reflected in how he carries on a discussion.

If one were to cut out this one fragment of the interview, I think we have an excellent discussion of a hugely important topic with a man who knows better than most of what is involved. I think he is trying to be as balanced as possible without overly dramatizing or speculating on what he sees. However, overall my impression is that he is saying that things are not right without pointing fingers at who is responsible.

What is giving me bad vibes is the fact that he does not come out and say that use of this "gene therapy" should be stopped due to the problems that are seen in the field. He mentions what these problems are, but says nothing about stopping the injections. He notes that testing has not been finished, but refrains from saying anything strong against the drive to inject the whole World with something that is not fully tested.

At 1:03 he is saying the vaccines are successful in stopping the jab-ed people from being hospitalized and/or dying ??????? Wowwww .... that is stretching testing data to the max to extract something that looks positive. He was called out on this, but I am not aware that anyone has shown data from Big Pharma that these vaccines make a difference. He talks about repurposed drugs, but no detail about the vaccines. Even more hilarious is to read about people who had both doses of the "clot shot" and yet catch Covid again

I get an impression that the good doctor is sending a message, "65 and older go get it. There are some problems, but we are working on it. The next batches will be modified to work even better, so worry not and line up for soon to be released version 2 ."

He spent more time than I would have expected on "Long Covid", as though it was some huge problem to Society. IMHO that is an exaggerated position not born out by reality, as the measures being implemented to supposedly fight Covid-19 are doing far more damage than Covid-19 or the "long covid" combined.

For someone not having had followed Con-19 Theater closely, listening to this interview will be a challenge. Dr. Malone has managed to weave a narrative that safely puts him on all sides of the issue without, IMHO, saying where he REALLY STANDS. I don't think he is been clear about this.

This interview is like making sausage, where in the end no clarity is presented.

 

[SOTTREADER]

On Dr Malone, my take is that he's trustworthy to the extent he's fighting to stop this. I know he's in the employ of whatever faction of the government but I don't think that negates his trustworthiness.

The reason I think the above is mainly due to his stance on bioethics. He's also faced real "difficulty" in his life and I think this has built his character and integrity. He comes across as nonreactive, contemplative, a bit stoic and as a deep thinker. He also comes across as a DEEP strategic thinker - he knows more than he let's on and you can see it in his eyes. He would gladly let someone take an incorrect position if the end goal justifies it - I do think he lets people run away with wrong concepts or ideas as he's focussed on a longer game.

To be honest my impression is that he was chosen for this role as they needed someone super competent both in terms of engaging with an audience but also in terms of scientific knowledge. In addition this person needed to have a personality capable of withstanding the rigours of stepping into such an arena and maintain a sense of balance, integrity and control over himself. You can read a lot about a man by just observing his mannerisms

Ps, I noted Del had a massive distrust for him when he interviewed him 2 weeks ago. For good reason, the counter move will happen through the alternate media / space but it won't be driven by the main players there, it looks like whatever faction of the PTB is doing this will use the alternate media and the infrastructure it has built as the staging point for an offense. If you amplify it strong enough the message will break through the mass consciousness but in a weird way, it'll break through from the nooks and crannies of society, from places where the mainstream can't move quick enough to plug. We'll then have 2 duel realities side by side and it's going to be a bit strange.

But then don't forget on the wings we'll also have the biological impacts coming in - you can already see some of it by the high attendance into A&E departments and the like. In the long-term the mainstream will simply fail to sustain itself as you know why - they were dumb enough to jab themselves and their allies. Disease will come in and whither them away slowly but surely thereby clearing the path for what has been building to step in and dominate the day. At least that's what I think could / may happen if it all doesn't go to hell.

 

[KJS]

I think there's a network building of resistance that cuts through countries and institutions.

Not only that, I've also noticed that some of the people that went for a jab started to be suspicious. I've talked yesterday with a colleague, and she is not wanting to participate in further vaccinations. After second shot (mRNA) she felt so ill, and also she sees that there is a lot of political motivation behind the whole thing. Maybe there are some glitches with "obedient sequences" resulting from extremally short time to market and scale?

 

[SOTTREADER]

I listened as carefully as I could to what Dr. Malone was saying. I was with him up to the point where he started to say that the risk/benefit of getting the "gene therapy" is favorable for those 65 and older. That to me is not right, and available data shows this. That was crossing the Red Line for me.

I would love to see what he is basing his opinion on that position. Being a scientist, he should have no problem understanding the simple fact that you do not pump an experimental substance that was never used before into millions (if not billions) of people without understanding the LONG TERM EFFECTS. In the middle of 2020 sufficient data was available to show that SARS-Cov2 was not Ebola requiring extreme measures, Sweden was the prime example of this.

If, and I mean "if" as in I have my doubts, he did get the injection, his explanation of why he did it in a way makes sense to me, he needs to travel else he is cut off. However, in this interview, he could have stayed away from making recommendations as to what he thinks people should do. Up to that point, I thought he was being as neutral as possible, something he suggested he needs to do when working for the government. My impression is that he has been this way for years, thus is reflected in how he carries on a discussion.

If one were to cut out this one fragment of the interview, I think we have an excellent discussion of a hugely important topic with a man who knows better than most of what is involved. I think he is trying to be as balanced as possible without overly dramatizing or speculating on what he sees. However, overall my impression is that he is saying that things are not right without pointing fingers at who is responsible.

What is giving me bad vibes is the fact that he does not come out and say that use of this "gene therapy" should be stopped due to the problems that are seen in the field. He mentions what these problems are, but says nothing about stopping the injections. He notes that testing has not been finished, but refrains from saying anything strong against the drive to inject the whole World with something that is not fully tested.

At 1:03 he is saying the vaccines are successful in stopping the jab-ed people from being hospitalized and/or dying ??????? Wowwww .... that is stretching testing data to the max to extract something that looks positive. He was called out on this, but I am not aware that anyone has shown data from Big Pharma that these vaccines make a difference. He talks about repurposed drugs, but no detail about the vaccines. Even more hilarious is to read about people who had both doses of the "clot shot" and yet catch Covid again

I get an impression that the good doctor is sending a message, "65 and older go get it. There are some problems, but we are working on it. The next batches will be modified to work even better, so worry not and line up for soon to be released version 2 ."

He spent more time than I would have expected on "Long Covid", as though it was some huge problem to Society. IMHO that is an exaggerated position not born out by reality, as the measures being implemented to supposedly fight Covid-19 are doing far more damage than Covid-19 or the "long covid" combined.

For someone not having had followed Con-19 Theater closely, listening to this interview will be a challenge. Dr. Malone has managed to weave a narrative that safely puts him on all sides of the issue without, IMHO, saying where he REALLY STANDS. I don't think he is been clear about this.

This interview is like making sausage, where in the end no clarity is presented.

I think the main thing we have to factor in is not that everyone has to speak the truth entirely. Some people are to act as a bridge between 2 sides. Their are a lot of people who have taken the jab who can be shepherded into an alternate position if the right shepherd is in place. It's not a matter of people being static in their positions.

Ultimately, if a victory is to occur, the jabbed will need to be accommodated for in a way that is emotionally, psychologically and intellectually bearable to them. It can't be like, "You were all dumb and stupid, now repent" lol.

The position will be something more like - you made a decision but you weren't fully informed and if you were fully informed you may have made a different decision. Malone took the vax and he says he wasn't fully aware -> how relatable to parts of the masses who have taken the jab and now are thinking they may have done so in haste... See .

Part of the game is about building a bridge and those who build the bridge won't be saying the truth entirely. The truth entirely can be divisive and a repellent to those who fell for the lie. You therefore push them further away and therefore cement the dominant position of the mainstream. That's why for example I think Malone used Darkhorse as his primary gateway as it's much more palatable to a wider audience. That's why I think the recent demonitisation of the podcast is a sacrifice they made (the sacrifice of a chess piece) - it demonstrates the truth to the new audience that were captured and it brings them deeper into the truth. The game appears to be tactical and that's why I think a faction of the PTB is seriously mounting a move, it can't be grassroots as random people can't coordinate a strategy.

 

[Hi_Henry]

On Dr Malone, my take is that he's trustworthy to the extent he's fighting to stop this. I know he's in the employ of whatever faction of the government but I don't think that negates his trustworthiness.

The reason I think the above is mainly due to his stance on bioethics. He's also faced real "difficulty" in his life and I think this has built his character and integrity. He comes across as nonreactive, contemplative, a bit stoic and as a deep thinker. He also comes across as a DEEP strategic thinker - he knows more than he let's on and you can see it in his eyes. He would gladly let someone take an incorrect position if the end goal justifies it - I do think he lets people run away with wrong concepts or ideas as he's focussed on a longer game.

I agree, he is not a simple person to deconstruct. So many years in the bowls of the beast means that he knows how to cover his back.

But I have a major issue with anyone pushing this clot-shot when long term effects are not known. That is more than a red line, that is a line dividing us from Hell. He is for people having freedom to chose, but he is also OK to say 65+ should take the clot-shot. He's a chameleon, who is in a way sending people off the cliff.

- I do think he lets people run away with wrong concepts or ideas as he's focussed on a longer game.

To Ryan's credit he did not let him get away with this tactic. He called him out on the "end points" of studies, and our stoic doctor had to do a bit of mental gymnastics to come out sounding OK. For me, in the end, he did not come out OK. He just sounded like a snake oil salesman who simply subtly changed the subject and became less specific.

 

[SOTTREADER]

I agree, he is not a simple person to deconstruct. So many years in the bowls of the beast means that he knows how to cover his back.

But I have a major issue with anyone pushing this clot-shot when long term effects are not known. That is more than a red line, that is a line dividing us from Hell. He is for people having freedom to chose, but he is also OK to say 65+ should take the clot-shot. He's a chameleon, who is in a way sending people off the cliff.


To Ryan's credit he did not let him get away with this tactic. He called him out on the "end points" of studies, and our stoic doctor had to do a bit of mental gymnastics to come out sounding OK. For me, in the end, he did not come out OK. He just sounded like a snake oil salesman who simply subtly changed the subject and became less specific.

Again, I would say he isn't selling, he's disrupting. His target is not you or me, it's the person who has taken the jab or fallen for the mainstream lie.

He won't come out as antivax as that will close him off from the target. He will sell it to over 65 because he has to pay homage to covid so he does so to the old. He tells this lie to remain in the game, to get to his target.

It's all tactical. See it as strategic moves rather than strictly lies vs truths. Is he moving people to the mainstream or from the mainstream to the alternate - see it from this higher angle. He may be speaking through alternate outlets but his target is not the people who already know - the alternate is being amplified to reach into the mainstream. This is where the "offense" is being mounted from.

That's my reading of the situation.

 

[KJS]

It is impressive how Wikipedia started to stigmatize academics that are not aligned with the mainstream (almost in realtime). There was a paper (coauthored) by Harald Walach about the safety of the vaccines in the context of the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch National Register ADR databases that was retracted yesterday. Never mind his whole career, his non-obedience must be punished:

Harald Walach: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hi_Henry]

It is impressive how Wikipedia started to stigmatize academics that are not aligned with the mainstream (almost in realtime). There was a paper (coauthored) by Harald Walach about the safety of the vaccines in the context of the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch National Register ADR databases that was retracted yesterday. Never mind his whole career, his non-obedience must be punished:

Harald Walach: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They are going after everyone who will not stay silent on the Con-19 Operation. Even those who have peer-reviewed papers.

Retraction: Walach et al. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693​

by
Vaccines Editorial Office

MDPI, St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
Vaccines 2021, 9(7), 729; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070729 (registering DOI)
Received: 1 July 2021 / Accepted: 1 July 2021 / Published: 2 July 2021

Retraction: Walach et al. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693

The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy [...]

www.mdpi.com

 

[psychegram]

They are going after everyone who will not stay silent on the Con-19 Operation. Even those who have peer-reviewed papers.

Retraction: Walach et al. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693

The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy [...]

www.mdpi.com

The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy [1], cited above.
Serious concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding misinterpretation of data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.
The article was evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief with the support of several Editorial Board Members. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the findings.
These include, but are not limited to:
The data from the Lareb report (https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily.

Translation: the editors came under pressure, put their beedy little heads together, and came up with some language game sophistry in order to have a plausible excuse to retract the paper. Their argument seems to come down to the old "correlation is not causation", quibbling about definitions, and then concludes with the absolute howler that the statistical analysis performed in the paper, demonstrating that bad things disproportionately happen to the vaxxed, is of no relevance because a causal pathway has yet to be demonstrated.

Note that they say they did contact the authors, but don't report what the authors' response was, merely that it was not 'satisfactory'.