Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

[Iain]

Worth noting that there's evidence that lyme disease originated with a biowarfare program intended to weaponize tics, not on order to kill the enemy, but in order to use the tics as an area denial weapon ... biological landmines, basically.

So no, not every biological weapon needs to be aimed at mortality.

And then there's the C's suggestion in the most recent session that COVID-1984 was developed not to kill people, but to make them easier to control.

Could it also be the case that they were trying to create a vaccine at Fort Detrick to make soldiers easier to control/quicker to train? I know in the C's response it was 'humans', but still, maybe that was the end game...

Of course most soldiers seem pretty easy to control but this involves much of their training being, essentially, a brain washing program – to turn people (at least suitable candidates) into soldiers who never question an order and kill without remorse.

If a vaccine could be created to speed up this process and also to avoid the backlash that comes from veterans speaking out about their experiences in illegal wars, that could make things much easier for their controllers. Looks like most of these experimental drugs are trialed on the military first and it could well have been the plan to put it into circulation among the general populace later on, depending on how well it worked.

After watching one of the earlier interviews with Dr. Judy Mikovits (which I believe is no longer on Youtube) I was struck by her description of the random vial mutations they were trying to test. Just letting a virus mutate and then trying to figure out what this new version did, little planning just taking their opportunity as it came. Couple this with the now well documented security issues at Detrick...

I can very easily see how this could have got out of the lab before anyone even really knew what it was or what it could do. More than likely this has happened many times in the past too.

 

[Jones]

Let me put it another way by asking a general question for the sake of discussion: why would Bill Gates tell people in public speeches that his plan is to depopulate the earth by forcing vaccines on everyone that will sterilize and/or kill them? Is he like the evil bad guy in a movie who can't help himself from a monologue detailing his whole plan? Is it some kind of demonic ritual to tell the victims exactly what's going to happen to them? Something else? What would he have to gain from tipping everyone off to his plan? How would that help him to gain power and control and make money (I'm assuming those are his goals but again I could be wrong)?

A few things are coming into play.

First is the kind of attitude that George Soros has - he can make or break a country by the way he trades it's currency. If he breaks the country he is ensuring poverty, starvation, illness you name it. But his attitude is "I cannot and do not pay attention to the social consequences of what I do. I am there to make money" and he states that quite openly. He then goes on to blame the countries that he has broken for mismanaging their currency!

Gates, to my thinking has the same attitude.

But there's another angle to Gates statement. It mostly gets past the majority because of either semantic aphasia or selection and substitution - they hear 'vaccination, health care and reproductive health' and they totally miss or do some mental gymnastics with the population reduction part of the statement. Maybe there's some superiority or racism going on there and they only think that 'population reduction' is going to impact third world countries or something.

I can't say how or why exactly, but the meaning of the whole statement just slides right by them and the focus is held on the parts that they can make safe meaning out of.

Does Gates care if anyone sees through that? I don't think so. He probably couldn't even comprehend that others wouldn't just buy into what he probably perceives as the brilliance of his plan. If what he perceives to be the minority don't buy into his plan, then unless they have the kind of funds behind them that he does and they are playing an opposing game, they probably don't even show up on his radar - they might as well not exist, because they simply don't in his world in any form other than units of energy that either fit into the plan or don't. If they don't fit into the plan then they are about as good as an old blown toaster - totally discard it.

Basically, I think he has no fear of exposing his plan because he doesn't think he can fail or that anyone can or will stop him. I know he's copping some heat over vaccines in India, but does he even really consider that a threat? He's already gained protection from liability for potential COVID vaccines from what I recall.

 

[Persej]

It was about the iceland volcano with an imprononçable name ! Eij... something ?

Eyjafjallajökull.

2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Was this the goal I wounder, kill of as many elderly as possible?? It's looking that way at the moment..

I don't think that killing the elderly was their plan. I think it's simply that they needed big numbers to justify the lockdowns, and spreading the virus to elderly in nursing homes is the best way to get those numbers. If the main plan was to kill of as many elderly as possible, than we wouldn't even have the lockdowns. They would just let the virus spread everywhere.

 

[Nienna]

Just a quick thank you to Jones, Laurs, Ocean and Persej for the info on the international travel.

 

[Iain]

But there's another angle to Gates statement. It mostly gets past the majority because of either semantic aphasia or selection and substitution - they hear 'vaccination, health care and reproductive health' and they totally miss or do some mental gymnastics with the population reduction part of the statement. Maybe there's some superiority or racism going on there and they only think that 'population reduction' is going to impact third world countries or something.

I can't say how or why exactly, but the meaning of the whole statement just slides right by them and the focus is held on the parts that they can make safe meaning out of.

I think this is very true.

Another aspect may be how people have generally come to perceive Bill Gates. The constant repetition of 'philanthropist', works on many, despite his numerous crimes being out there for those who care to look.

It is very easy to forget just how little many people look into anything like Gates background or the negative stories out there. Negative MSM stories about him tend to have a positive spin added to them in the end (the old 'vaccine injuries were a mistake, he was only trying to help' sob stories).

Even among the few tech loving friends I have, they are well aware that Gates is no programing genius, but they seem to have an image of him as a bit 'cheeky', the only one who could market all these great programs to the public and make loads of money – but hey, at least he does good with it!

To this day the story of him 'giving away his fortune' to medical research is still brought up as a great thing. The ignorance surrounding certain figures is quite amazing as well as the unwillingness to look any deeper.

 

[Josi]

Another great video from Amazing Polly.
To Serve Man - The Lie Of Philanthropy
"Put on your seatbelts, you're in for a bumpy ride. I show you how so-called 'philanthropists' use language and veneers to hide their bad deeds as they de-humanize us. These people are like vampire aliens determined to hijack free will."

 

[mrtn]

I could imagine that if you poll people on the street you might get more 'non-afraids' than if you call people at home and vice versa (And if people are afraid then the chance to reach them at home is higher). So maybe that information would be nice to have along with the data.

 

[Seamus]

Antibody testing is starting to show the mainstream that the mortality rate is less than 1%. A friend of mine who was initially very concerned about the virus just sent this to me:

New York antibody study estimates 13.9% of residents have had the coronavirus, Gov. Cuomo says

I wonder how long it will take for all of the fear/panic inertia that's fueling the lockdown hysteria to wear itself out.

Added: the title and the way the article is written is misleading and fear-emotion laden, you have to dig for the 1% mortality rate figure, its about halfway down the page:

While Covid-19 deaths across the state have begun to level off, the “number of lives lost is still breathtakingly tragic,” Cuomo said. The state’s mortality rates remains persistently high, at 7.4% with at least 19,453 fatalities and 263,754 confirmed cases, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. The antibody testing indicates that the actual death rate is far lower, less than 1%, Cuomo said.

 

[Persej]

This doctor wrote another great article. The lockdown of elderly while letting everybody else to get on with their lives seems like a best approach for a virus like this. But somehow in the UK the complete opposite of that is implemented.

The Anti-lockdown Strategy

Unfortunately, it seems that COVID-19 has infected everyone involved in healthcare management and turned their brains into useless mush.

Lockdown has two main purposes. One, to limit the spread of the virus. Two, and most important, to protect the elderly and infirm from infection – as these are the people most likely to become very ill, end up in hospital, and often die. [In my view, if we had any sense, we would lockdown/protect the elderly, and let everyone else get on with their lives].

However, the hospitals themselves have another policy. Which is to discharge the elderly unwell patients with COVID directly back into the community, and care homes. Where they can spread the virus widely amongst the most vulnerable.

This, believe it or not, is NHS policy. Still.

Yes, you did just read that. COVID-19 patients, even those with symptoms, are still to be discharged back home, or into care homes – unless unwell enough to require hospital care e.g. oxygen, fluids and suchlike. If this is not national policy, then the managers are telling me lies.

In fact, it does seem to be policy, although the guidance from the UK Government is virtually incomprehensible. I have read it a few times and I fail to fully understand it – or partially understand it. I tried reading it upside down, and it made just about as much sense.

I wrote about this situation in my last blog, as the impact of COVID of care homes was becoming apparent – even to politicians. I thought that someone, somewhere, might have realised the policy of flinging COVID positive patients – or patients who may have COVID – out of hospital, and into care homes, might prove a complete and utter disaster.

I now call care homes COVID incubators. Places where the disease can grow and multiply, happily finding new host after new host. Not so happily for the residents.

Equally, sending people home is further complete madness. Sending them home to somewhere that, very often, contains another elderly and frail person. Normally a husband or a wife. Did anyone think through the consequences of this? Clearly not. Do you think the other person in the house may be at risk? Really, you think. Surely not, knock me down with a feather…

If there is not another elderly partner in the house, there will usually be carers who come in to look after the freshly discharged COVID positive patients. These carers will have almost no protective equipment. Even if they do, they will be lifting and moving the patient around, washing them, taking them to the toilet… in very close proximity. The chances of getting infected are very, very, high.

These carers will then go and visit other elderly, vulnerable patients scattered around the community. They become the perfect vectors to spread the virus far and wide, amongst the exact group of people that we are trying to protect.

I have been doing a lot of jumping up and down about this over the last few days. The hospital trusts appear incapable of understanding the argument. ‘Clear the hospital, clear the hospital’… are the only words they seem capable of uttering.

The hospitals, I point out repeatedly, have been cleared. Wards are standing empty, corridors echoing. The first peak has also been passed – even if no-one dares admit it. So why are we continuing to fling COVID positive patients out into the community? Why? Why? Why?

‘Because it is national policy’. Squawk. ‘Because it is national policy’. Squawk. ‘Pieces of eight, pieces of eight.’

The entire nation has been locked down. Do not travel, stay two meters apart, do not go outside blah, blah. Meanwhile we have the perfect anti-lockdown policy in place for the very people we are mostly supposed to be protecting. There are two parallel universes here.

If you wanted to create a system most perfectly designed to spread COVID amongst the vulnerable elderly population, you may well have come up with the current one. Infect people with COVID in hospital, and then scatter them into care homes and the rest of the community. Making sure that you infect all the carers on the way.

As Albert Einstein said. ‘Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity… and I’m not so sure about the universe.’

Thud… the noise of my head hitting the desk in utter frustration.

The Anti-lockdown Strategy

21st April 2020 Unfortunately, it seems that COVID-19 has infected everyone involved in healthcare management and turned their brains into useless mush. Lockdown has two main purposes. One, to limi…

drmalcolmkendrick.org

 

[Cosmos]

Let me put it another way by asking a general question for the sake of discussion: why would Bill Gates tell people in public speeches that his plan is to depopulate the earth by forcing vaccines on everyone that will sterilize and/or kill them? Is he like the evil bad guy in a movie who can't help himself from a monologue detailing his whole plan? Is it some kind of demonic ritual to tell the victims exactly what's going to happen to them? Something else? What would he have to gain from tipping everyone off to his plan? How would that help him to gain power and control and make money (I'm assuming those are his goals but again I could be wrong)?

As the old saying goes "actions speak louder than words". And "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". I think Jones brought up some good possible answers to the questions in his response. Also remember that megalomaniacs and/or Psychopaths often get a kick out of high risk and/or reckless behavior (often even risking their own standing/health/reputation to their detriment) and thinking that they are above ordinary people which they view as sheep that deserve to be exploited. So they often do and say things of which they fully know that it exposes what their plans are and thus putting them at risk because it is more thrilling to them. There is also the good possibility, as stated in my earlier posts on Gates, that he engages in Psycho double talk in his speeches and public statements where there are two meanings for almost everything he says; the one meaning is that what the majority of ordinary people interpret into what he means and says by his statements and the other one is what he and his ilk really mean when they talk about this or that concept. A sort of insider joke between Elites/Psychopaths amusing themselves how stupid ordinary people are. So the questions above could be quite as well answered in the following way:

why would Bill Gates tell people in public speeches that his plan is to depopulate the earth by forcing vaccines on everyone that will sterilize and/or kill them?

Because it is thrilling for him and his ilk to take on high risks and megalomaniacs tend to think as Jones put it below:

Basically, I think he has no fear of exposing his plan because he doesn't think he can fail or that anyone can or will stop him.

The more they expose what they are really up to, the more kicks they get out of it, because they feed on "the stupid reactions of the sheeps out there".

Is he like the evil bad guy in a movie who can't help himself from a monologue detailing his whole plan? Is it some kind of demonic ritual to tell the victims exactly what's going to happen to them? Something else?

Exactly all the above and more could be the case. Remember the tendency of megalomaniacs and/or Psychopaths of blabbing out what they are really up to, because it gives them kicks and thrills to take on more risks, even to their own detriment.

What would he have to gain from tipping everyone off to his plan? How would that help him to gain power and control and make money (I'm assuming those are his goals but again I could be wrong)?

See above.

Having said that, I think there are a number of possibilities in regard to Bill Gates, which are all superseded by the idea that even he is likely just a puppet of the masters behind the scenes who are pulling his strings and using him as a public front/distraction:

Option one: He really believes in and is putting all his efforts into „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" while not being aware that his "saintly mission" is co-opted by evil forces.

Option two: He really believes in and is putting all his efforts into „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" and is thinking that his genius plans and "saintly mission" must supersede what the "normal population" thinks is good since they are not wise/mature enough, or too stupid, to know how to create "a better world." He is a genius who knows it better.

Option three: He doesn't really believe in „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" but is putting this "saintly mission" up as a front of what he is really interested in: making money, no matter how and with what consequences.

Option four: He doesn't really believe in „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" but is putting this "saintly mission" up as a front of what he is really interested in: power and control over the "subhuman underlings".

Option five: He doesn't really believe in „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ but is putting this "saintly mission" up as a front of what he is really interested in: depopulating the earth from the brownish and/or soul possessing "subhumans" who are a threat to him and his ilk.

At the very best I would tend to option three being the case. More likely though IMO at this point is that it is combined with either option two or more likely partly with option four and/or five. Or even option four or five alone or in combination. Notice that option one is what the mainstream has conditioned the population to think of Bill Gates as well. That alone should be a red flag.

 

[Metrist]

NYC Mayors social distancing snitch hotline: send more pics

 

[Jacques]

So I was thinking about this six feet distance thing and what came to mind was the phrase six feet under as in dead and buried.

There are already pics of that:

 

[syldan]

As the poker game unfolds (maybe it's Bingo?) When we stare the poverty in the U.S. in the eye, it is enough to wonder if comets wouldn't be a better hand for gazillions of people?! I am dumbfounded but for having lived 5 years in the U.S. it is what it is! And one thing is certain it's coming your way sooner than later. Globalisation is progress!

 

[Seamus]

As the old saying goes "actions speak louder than words". And "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.". I think Jones brought up some good possible answers to the questions in response. Also remember that megalomaniacs and/or Psychopaths often get a kick out of high risk and/or reckless behavior (often even risking their own standing/health/reputation/determent) and thinking that they are above ordinary people which they view as sheep that deserve to be exploited. So they often do and say things that they fully know exposes what their plans are and thus putting them at risk because it is more thrilling to them. There is also the good possibility, as stated in my earlier posts on Gates, that he engages in Psycho double talk in his speeches and public statements where there are two meanings for almost everything he says; the one meaning is that what the majority of ordinary people interpret into what he means and says by his statements and the other one is what he and his ilk really mean when they talk about this or that concept. A sort of insider joke between Elites/Psychopaths amusing themselves how stupid ordinary people are. So the questions above could be quite as well answered in the following way:



Because it is thrilling for him and his ilk to take on high risks and megalomaniacs tend to think as Jones put it below:



The more they expose what they are really up to, the more kicks they get out of it, because they feed on "the stupid reactions of the sheeps out there".



Exactly all the above and more could be the case. Remember the tendency of megalomaniacs and/or Psychopaths of blabbing out what they are really up to because it gives them kicks to take on more risks even to their own detriment.



See above.

Thanks for the reminder of psychopath psychology, I think I was projecting my own internal world a bit. That all makes sense.

Having said that, I think there are a number of possibilities in regard to Bill Gates, which are all superseded by the idea that even he is likely just a puppet of the masters behind the scenes who are pulling his strings and using him as a public front/distraction:

Option one: He really believes in and is putting all its efforts into „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" while not being aware that his "saintly mission" is co-opted by evil forces.

Option two: He really believes in and is putting all its efforts into „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" and is thinking that his genius plans and "saintly mission" must supersede what the "normal population" thinks is good since they are not wise/mature enough, or too stupid, to know how to create "a better world." He is a genius who knows it better.

Option three: He doesn't really believe in „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" but is putting this "saintly mission" up as a front toward what he is really interested in: making money, no matter how and with what consequences.

Option four: He doesn't really believe in „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ and "saving the earth/humanity" but is putting this "saintly mission" up as a front toward what he is really interested in: power and control over the "subhuman underlings".

Option five: He doesn't really believe in „improving a population's standard of living and overall access to healthcare„ but is putting this "saintly mission" up as a front toward what he is really interested in: depopulating the earth from the brownish and/or soul possessing "subhumans" who are a threat to him and his ilk.

At the very best I would tend to option three being the case. More likely though IMO at this point is that it is combined with either option two or more likely partly with option four and/or five. Or even option four or five alone or in combination. Notice that option one is what the mainstream has conditioned the population to think of Bill Gates as well. That alone should be a red flag.

Good write up of different scenarios, I agree with them and I agree with your likelihood analysis.

 

[Kay Kim]

This questionnaire showed up in my iPad few minutes ago. I submitted it No.
It’s from our members?