Weaponised Deception

Abstract

Totalitarianism is facilitated by what Hannah Arendt calls “gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods,” which the masses are organised to believe. This tradition has a long history, even in the West. The “Covid-19 pandemic” was a Big Lie: there is no credible epidemiological evidence to support its existence. Rather, the “pandemic” was a media-driven social phenomenon that served to deflect attention from far-reaching technocratic agendas being advanced across every area of life. “Pandemic preparedness” provides cover for building the institutional architecture of global dictatorship under the pretext of public health. It is unclear whether “SARS-CoV-2” is real: problems exist regarding its alleged “isolation” (involving cytopathic effects, genome sequencing, and electron microscopy images). There is, however, evidence to suggest that “SARS-CoV-2” may, in part, have been influenza rebranded. The “vaccines,” which instead of protecting people have caused catastrophic harm, are likely bioweapons aimed at controlling the population in multiple ways. Yet, despite the “Covid-19” narrative being saturated with deceit, most people cannot and will not see it, owing to cognitive dissonance.

Totalitarianism is facilitated by what Hannah Arendt calls “gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods,” which the masses are organised to believe. This tradition has a long history, even in the West. The “Covid-19 pandemic” was a Big Lie: there is no credible epidemiological evidence to support its existence. Rather, the “pandemic” was a media-driven social phenomenon that served to deflect attention from far-reaching technocratic agendas being advanced across every area of life. “Pandemic preparedness” provides cover for building the institutional architecture of global dictatorship under the pretext of public health. It is unclear whether “SARS-CoV-2” is real: problems exist regarding its alleged “isolation” (involving cytopathic effects, genome sequencing, and electron microscopy images). There is, however, evidence to suggest that “SARS-CoV-2” may, in part, have been influenza rebranded. The “vaccines,” which instead of protecting people have caused catastrophic harm, are in fact military products aimed at controlling the population in multiple ways. Yet, despite the “Covid-19” narrative being saturated with deceit, most people cannot and will not see it, owing to cognitive dissonance.

The Big Lie

Totalitarianism and Big Lies

Hitler in Mein Kampf coins the idea of the Big Lie, i.e. a lie so huge that ordinary people would not imagine it to be possible:

[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously (Hitler, 1939, p. 183)

The idea is that if the lie is big enough, and driven by sufficiently powerful propaganda, the masses will not think to question it. “If you repeat a lie often enough,” explains Klaus Schwab’s protégé, Yuval Harari, “people will think it’s the truth. And the bigger the lie, the better, because people won’t even think about how something so big can be a lie” (cited in Hughes, 2022b). Note Hitler’s targeting of the “primitive” mind, or what behavioural psychologists today call the “automatic brain” (Dolan et al., 2010, p. 73). The dynamics of mass psychology can be used to override the conscious mind. Individuals can be made to consent, freely in their own mind, to propositions based on Big Lies that they do not recognise as such.

Arendt (1962, p. 333) writes of totalitarianism that a “terrible, demoralizing fascination” is to be found in the “possibility that gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods can eventually be established as unquestioned facts,” provided the masses can be organised to believe them. This is true even if the lies are crude and obvious: “Simple forgeries from the viewpoint of scholarship appeared to receive the sanction of history itself when the whole marching reality of the movements stood behind them and pretended to draw from them the necessary inspiration for action.” A gigantic lie propagated with sufficient force, guile, and repetition, particularly when motivating political behaviour, comes to be accepted as true.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists,” J. Edgar Hoover (1956, p. 48) said of communism. A favoured modus operandi of the intelligence agencies, however, is projective attack, i.e. accusing others of the very tactics and strategies which they themselves adopt. It is the intelligence agencies who sit at the heart of the monstrous lies and conspiracies that have facilitated Western imperialism, causing so much harm to the world (Hughes, 2022b; Valentine, 2017). Samuel Huntington, who had ties to the CIA, admitted in 1981 that the “Cold War” was a cover story used to legitimise U.S. imperialism: “You may have to sell [intervention in another country] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has been doing ever since the Truman Doctrine” (cited in Hoffmann et al., 1981, p. 14).

Manufacturing Global Consciousness

1968 marked a seminal moment in the history of global class relations. During the Prague Spring of that year, Dubček's call for “socialism with a human face” was made in April, and Soviet tanks finally rolled in to crush the resistance on August 21. On the other side of the “Iron Curtain,” “May ‘68” in Paris saw a month of civil unrest that very nearly spilled over into revolution after President de Gaulle was forced to flee the country.

The lesson of 1968, from a ruling-class perspective, was that it was no longer enough for different political leaderships—including nominal enemies—to come together on an ad hoc basis to put down working-class revolts as and when they arose, as in East Germany in 1953 and Hungary in 1956 (Glaberman & Faber, 2002, pp. 171–2; Wilford, 2008, p. 49). Rather, the transnationalisation of resistance must be met with the coordination of ruling-class interests in permanent counterrevolution at the global level. Hence, organisations such as the World Economic Forum and the Trilateral Commission were founded in the early 1970s to improve coordination of capitalist interests transnationally. The ultimate direction of travel, already mooted after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the name of avoiding nuclear Armageddon, is a world state, controlled by a global ruling class (in which sense the WEF’s logo, “improving the state of the world,” has always been ambiguous).

In order to engineer a move from a world of nation-states to a world state, it is essential to create what Brzezinski (1970, p. 29) calls “a new global consciousness” (which, he recognises, does not have the support of “the majority of humanity”) and a shared set of global problems that demand globally coordinated responses and a sense of common purpose. In this context, it is important to ask critical questions, not only about the alleged moon landings (1969–1972) but also about the environmental movement and the global population control agenda, which all came about soon after (and even during) the events of 1968.

As with the events of “9/11,” academia has failed to conduct due diligence into the authenticity of the moon landings, despite a proliferation of evidence outside academia that has caused more and more people to conclude that the moon landings were faked. In rare instances where academics do touch on the subject, their typical point of departure, unsupported by evidence, is that the moon landings were real, and the move then tends to be to explain the supposed psychological “deficiency” in those who think they were not (Hattersley et al., 2022; Lewandowsky et al., 2013; Swami et al., 2013). In the absence of any serious investigation into the subject, however, academia is in no place to comment. Without getting into the details of the debate, it is sufficient for our purposes simply to note that, if the moon landings were faked, this would be consistent with an attempt to foster the “new global consciousness” called for by Brzezinski (1970, p. 29). As President Nixon claimed while purportedly on the phone to the moon in July 1969, “For one priceless moment in the whole history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one.” Fakery of the moon landings would also provide proof of concept that it is possible to deceive the entire world about something provided virtually every government and major news outlet runs with the same narrative.

The Club of Rome, founded by Aurelio Peccei, Alexander King, and David Rockefeller in April 1968, launched the global environmental movement. It was particularly influential with its Limits to Growth report (Meadows et al., 1972). The Rockefeller Commission Report (Centre for Research on Population & Security, 1972) and the Kissinger Report (National Security Council, 1974) promote global “population control.” The misanthropic, antiquated Malthusian logic is always the same: human beings are a scourge on the face of the Earth and must learn to change their selfish ways if they are to live “sustainably” in harmony with their environment. Put differently, human beings must modify their behaviour in accordance with the centralisation of power at the global level, and wealth must never be equitably redistributed.

Would the transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022b) really have the audacity/depravity to attempt to deceive the entire world population? We know that the CIA was secretly steering the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the National Student Association, the International Commission of Jurists, the AFL-CIO, and Radio Free Europe. When this all became public knowledge in 1967/1968, it marked “the first occasion in the postwar period when Americans learned en masse that they were being systematically deceived by federal officials” (Wilford, 2008, p. 251). CIA director William Casey is reputed to have claimed in 1981: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false” (McLovincraft, 2020). Ex-CIA agent John Stockwell claimed in the 1980s: “It goes beyond your wildest imagination, the extent to which the CIA has gone to manipulate public opinion” (Lena, 2023).

We also know about the enormous influence of the Rockefeller family. In the nineteenth century, before the family fortune was made, William Avery Rockefeller, Sr. allegedly travelled from town to town selling “a cancer cure consisting of oil and laxative” (snake oil) and is reported to have bragged: “I cheat my boys every chance I get. I want to make ‘em sharp” (Wood, 2018, p. 55). He and his great grandson, David Rockefeller, were both, in Wood’s estimation, “lying deceivers, con men and hucksters. David only played his part with a lot more money at his disposal.” Thus, with respect to Rockefeller influence through foundations, multinational corporations, NGOs, politicians, lobbyists, and the United Nations (not least the “sustainable development” agenda), it is “no mystery why deception and fraud run amok: as the ancient proverb states, ‘The fish stinks from the head’” (Wood, 2018, p. 168). By the early 1970s, Rockefeller forces had built up a “repertoire of hoaxes,” including the 1973 “oil hoax” (Minnicino, 1974, p. 53; cf. Engdahl, 2004, Chap. 9).

Meanwhile in the 1970s, NATO used deception to suppress leftist opposition in Europe by deploying false flag terrorism against populations and blaming it on “far left” organisations—Operation Gladio being the best-known example (Ganser, 2005). “Phony strikes” and infiltrated movements and trade unions also involved deception, leaving the working class “faced with the situation in which world events are designed for effect”; in such a world, “the criterion for insanity is to say that reality is what it appears to be” (Minnicino, 1974, p. 53).

9/11 and the Big Lie

According to the 9/11 Commission Report (Kean & Hamilton, 2004), “Al Qaeda” attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. It only took a few months for Griffin (2005) to dismantle that report on the basis of its many “omissions and distortions.” Other investigations have shown the official “9/11” narrative to be unsupportable on just about every level (Meyssan, 2002; Griffin & Scott, 2006; Zarembka, 2008; Wood, 2011; Gourley, 2012; Davidsson, 2013, 2020; Griffin & Woodworth, 2018). The 9/11 attacks and the ensuing “War on Terror” fit the classic pattern of deep state operations, including Big Lies, false flag attacks and a globalised Strategy of Tension (Hughes, 2022b).

Governments, international organisations, think tanks, the media, and academia have shamefully spent over two decades endorsing the official narrative of “9/11,” on which all the horrors of the “War on Terror,” now coming home to Western populations (see Chap. 8), are premised (Hughes, 2020, pp. 55–56). Notwithstanding a few honourable exceptions, the role of academia in refusing to scrutinise the events of 9/11 and challenge the obvious lies on which the official narrative is based—even when presented with evidence in peer-reviewed form in a mainstream journal (Hughes, 2020, cf. Hughes, 2021)—is chilling.

Outside academia, more astute commentators quickly realised what was happening: “The brainwashing methods are relatively simple and classic. First, use the terror itself to put people into a state of shock, making them more susceptible to suggestion. Then resort to the ‘Big Lie’ technique to repeatedly hammer home your psywar message” (Digital Citizen, 2003). Tony Blair’s (2002) claim that Iraq was prepared to deploy WMD “within 45 minutes of an order to use them” was another Big Lie. Shayler (2022, p. 10) notes the similarities between “9/11” and the “Covid-19 pandemic”: “In both cases, the official accounts are not just slightly wrong. They are the exact opposite of the truth: In both cases, the evidence simply never existed to support the official line.” Meanwhile, evidence exposing the Big Lie was ignored or suppressed, “meaning millions of people have unnecessarily died or suffered other severe forms of harm, injury or loss.”

The “Pandemic”

The “Covid-19 Pandemic” as a Big Lie

Under “Covid-19,” Agamben observes, humanity is once again “entering a phase of its history where truth is being reduced to a moment within the march of falsity” (2021, p. 48). According to Knightly (2021), in keeping with the post-1968 context, “Covid has shown us [that] supposedly enemy nations suddenly come to an accord and demonstrate almost total unity of purpose to spread one big lie.” “Hitler’s notion of the ‘grossly impudent lie,’” remark Broudy and Hoop (2021, p. 379), “is especially prescient today” given the power of organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to shape global health narratives through direct influence on international organisations such as the WHO and the UN, the media, and the policies of many governments.

Would it be possible to fake a global pandemic given such a configuration of powerful actors? Indeed, it would, as the fake “swine flu pandemic” of 2009 illustrates (Fumento, 2010; cf. Keil, 2010; Wodarg et al., 2009). All that is needed is to fudge the meaning of the term “pandemic” (see Chap. 4) and to run a cynical PR campaign transnationally, such as the one orchestrated by Marc van Ranst (see EvidenceNotFear, 2020).

2009 served as a dry run for 2020, when again a “pandemic” was declared which, upon closer examination, turns out to be nothing of the kind (Davis, 2021). The “Covid-19 pandemic” was, in the view of Kyrie and Broudy (2022a), conjured out of “mass hysteria, malpractice, censorship and juggled data.” In the view of distinguished pathologist Roger Hodkinson in his testimony to Alberta state officials in November 2020, the “Covid-19 pandemic” represents “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public” (cited in Children’s Health Defence, 2020).

There is no credible epidemiological sense in which “Covid-19” can be said to have been a viral “pandemic.” In the United States, for example, New York City and certain North-East coastal states witnessed a large spike in mortality between March and June, 2020, yet 34 of 48 continental U.S. states did not see any such spike, a feature that is “impossible for a virulent and contagious respiratory disease virus acting in a society free from local aggression or local environmental disaster” (Rancourt et al., 2021, p. 138, Fig. 15). Meanwhile, all-cause mortality in Canada in 2020 remained normal in relation to the previous decade, begging the question of how an allegedly virulent and contagious pathogen failed to cross the world's longest international land border between two major trading partners (Rancourt et al., 2021, pp. 125, 128–9). Such jurisdictional heterogeneity runs “contrary to pandemic behaviour, and contrary to any (1945–2021) season of viral respiratory disease burden in the Northern hemisphere” (Rancourt et al., 2021, p. 62).

The spread of the “virus” across EU member states in Q2 and Q3 of 2020 was inconsistent with a viral pandemic. Engelbrecht and Köhnlein (2020), for example, observe that neighbouring European countries registered very different “Covid-19” excess mortality rates, e.g. no excess mortality in Germany and Portugal, but noticeable excess mortality in Belgium and Spain. Those differences were irrespective of the severity of “lockdown” measures, with most of the excess deaths occurring within a 2–3 week period around early April. Similarly, England has displayed excess mortality since March 2020, according to EuroMOMO data, whereas Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have not (Kendrick, 2022).

Matters (2020), writing in September 2020, notes that “Covid-19” death rates are negligible for around three quarters of the world’s countries, yet accrue predominantly in the USA, UK, and EU member states. New York City, for instance, had recorded 229,000 “Covid-19” deaths, compared to just 470 such deaths in Singapore. Why was the “virus” so much more lethal in the West—home to some of the world’s best healthcare systems—than in other regions of the world?

Similar was true of “case” rates. Hover the cursor over the dark blue part of the scale bar along the bottom of the map for “cumulative confirmed Covid-19 cases per million people” (WHO, n.d.-c). Dark blue refers to 300,000 + such cases, the highest category. Highlighted on the map is essentially “the West,” i.e. the United States, nearly all of Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, plus key allies including Israel and South Korea, as well as US-controlled Puerto Rico and French Guiana. Even though the USA, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand are oceans apart (and remember that air travel was heavily restricted), the “virus” was allegedly most concentrated in those regions, giving it a peculiarly Western-centric character, while the entire continent of Africa, where “vaccines” were least available, was virtually ignored.

It is hard to escape the impression that the “pandemic” was a social construct manufactured predominantly in the West, based on high death rates in particular cities coupled with the kinds of statistical manipulation and military-grade propaganda discussed in Chap. 4. This is consistent with a transnational deep state operation (Hughes, 2022b) aimed at replacing Western liberal democracy with technocracy. In that respect, it is telling that Secretary of State and former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, at the start of the “pandemic,” referred to being in a “live exercise” (a military term)—and that President Trump, standing right behind him, muttered “you should have let us know” (“Mike Pompeo we’re in a live exercise here,” 2020). This evidences the redundancy of the visible government when it comes to what Scott (2017, Chap. 9) calls “deep events,” i.e. events which profoundly transform the trajectory of politics and society, yet whose provenance is deliberately concealed.

Covid Theatre: Performing the “Pandemic”

If the “pandemic” were real in any meaningful sense—e.g. “Covid-19” having a high infection fatality rate, as opposed to the 0.05% median IFR for the under-70s identified by Ioannidis (2021), dropping to 0.03% for the under-60s, 0.011% for the 30–39 age range, 0.002% for 20–29, and 0.0003% for 0–19 (Pezullo et al., 2023)—why was the propaganda so fierce? “In a genuine pandemic,” Dymond (2020) observes, “this constant mental battering would be superfluous,” for no one would need to be persuaded of the danger of a high fatality disease outbreak. As with the 2009 “swine flu pandemic” (EvidenceNotFear, 2020; Fumento, 2010), the “Covid-19 pandemic” was a heavily mediated event.

Because human cognition is, to a significant extent, unconsciously emotion-driven (we tend to feel rather than reason our way to opinions), “acting as if we are infectious agents by wearing masks fosters greater belief in the official narrative” (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022b). The British public was, accordingly, encouraged through government/NHS propaganda to “Act like you’ve got it.” Outwardly healthy people performed the “pandemic” through “social distancing,” “self-isolation,” face masks, etc., making it a social, if not epidemiological, reality. Without the performance—“Covid theatre” in the words of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (see Harsanyi, 2022)—there would have been no visible evidence that anything was wrong. The PCR tests also served as “crucial ‘theatre props’ in convincing [the public] that the COVID-19 Story was a real pandemic” (Kingston, 2022).

Much like ducking and covering in the context of nuclear war, or using duct tape to protect against biological, chemical, or radiological terrorism (Meserve, 2003), the idea that wearing a piece of cloth on one’s face, or putting up plexiglass screens, or standing on stickers six feet apart could offer any meaningful protection to anyone against the “new Spanish flu” is preposterous. The “measures” were not about keeping people safe (even the UKHSA [2023, p. 5] retrospectively concedes “There is a lack of strong evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce COVID-19 transmission”). Rather, they were designed to convince the public of a new existential threat and to condition obedience and conformity (see Volume 2 of this book). Like the addict who finds endless rationalisations for their addictive behaviour, most people find that behaviour change compels a change in cognition rather than vice-versa (Festinger, 1957, 6). Enactment of the “measures” by the public, accordingly, makes the “pandemic” seem real to those taking part in the performance, no matter how absurd it is.

Politicians and their advisers played starring roles in the Covid theatre. The daily performances of government “scientists” at Downing Street press briefings, for example, intensified the drama of the “pandemic.” Suspicions have been raised that Boris Johnson was merely playing a part when claiming that doctors were preparing to announce his death after he was allegedly hospitalised by “Covid-19” (McCrae, 2023). One month later Johnson was hosting lockdown-breaking parties at 10 Downing Street (Kottasová et al,. 2022), at which no one “followed the rules.”

Politicians and royalty put masks on just before going on stage, sometimes removing the mask almost straight away, having modelled to the public the desired form of behaviour. At the G7 summit in June 2021, world leaders bumped elbows, wore masks, and “socially distanced”—but only for the cameras (Myers, 2021). At the COP 26 summit in Glasgow in November 2021, arriving leaders put on a mask after getting out of their car (in the fresh air), walked along the red carpet past a mask-wearing ceremonial guard, then removed the mask once inside the venue—all scientifically absurd, yet necessary for maintaining the charade of the “pandemic.”

The “Pandemic” as Technocratic Smokescreen

Decoying, camouflage, strategic misdirection, magic tricks, etc., have historically been key to military and intelligence operations (Melton & Wallace, 2009, pp. 9–29; Kyrie & Broudy, 2022a). The “Covid-19 pandemic,” correspondingly, acts as a smokescreen to deflect attention from far-reaching technocratic agendas being advanced across every area of life. As van der Pijl (2022, p. 31) recognises, those agendas have nothing to with health, and “everything to do with preserving the power of [a] transnational ruling class threatened by a restless population demanding rectification of the absurd inequalities produced by [twenty-first century capitalism].” Fundamentally, we are in a global class war (Hughes et al., 2023, § V), in which a proportionately tiny transnational ruling class is attempting to use its vast resources to subjugate the rest of humanity through technocratic control mechanisms such as central bank digital currency, social credit scoring (ESG scores for corporations), total surveillance, and the Internet of Bodies/Internet of Nano-Things (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022c, p. 363).

Even though war is being waged against the population, the ruling class decoys by claiming that we must “declare war on this virus” (United Nations, 2020). Bill Gates (2020) claims: “This is like a world war, except in this case, we’re all on the same side.” In reality, the battlelines have been drawn along global class lines, and the ruling class has taken advantage of the element of surprise to attack first. Just as the “War on Drugs” was cover for CIA drug-trafficking operations (Scott & Marshall, 1991), and just as the “War on Terror” served to spread terror and terrorism (Chomsky, 2003, p. 211), so the “war on the virus” provides cover for profoundly harmful measures taken in the name of public health.

Further evidence that the “pandemic” provides cover for authoritarian political agendas is provided by Schwab and Malleret (2020, p. 117) in their blueprint for the “Great Reset.” Most people, they claim, fearing for their lives in a “pandemic,” will be willing to allow state power to override individual rights, but then, “when the crisis is over, some may realize that their country has suddenly been transformed into a place where they no longer wish to live.” By the time the lie is exposed, it is too late, “for the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying” (Hitler, 1939, p. 183). Schwab seems familiar with this principle: there will be no going back to how things were, because “the cut which we have now is much too strong in order not to leave traces” (cited in Roscoe, 2022). Or consider Gates’ (2021) view on how the “pandemic” has advanced technocracy: “Even after this pandemic ends, it’s clear that much of the digitization it brought on is here to stay.”

It is futile to couch resistance to technocratic tyranny in the pseudo-medical terminology intended to distract and deceive the masses. As Hopkins (2021c) puts it, “This isn’t an academic argument over the existence, severity, or the response to a virus. This is a fight to determine the future of our societies.” Squabbling over whether or not viruses exist, Fitts notes, “has zero effect on stopping the control grid. At this time in our history, if we don’t stop the control grid, we’re going to be slaves” (Fitts & Betts, 2022).

No amount of reason, common sense, and scientific pleading makes any difference to the pursuit of technocratic agendas: “Those in charge have long since signalled that they have no intention of returning to a liberal democracy founded on the recognition of inalienable individual rights and freedoms” (Ruechel, 2021). Therefore, trying to confront them with data is futile. Blaylock (2022) asks: “[Have] scientific evidence, carefully done studies, clinical experience and medical logic had any effect on stopping these ineffective and dangerous vaccines?” His answer: “Absolutely not! The draconian efforts to vaccinate everyone on the planet continues (except the elite […]).” Petitioning the government to change course or calling for an inquiry is futile, because “appealing to reason (e.g., we need our freedoms back because X, Y, Z) and logic (e.g., the facts show otherwise) will have no effect on the totalitarians pushing the COVID-19 menticide” (Scott, 2021b).

“Pandemic Preparedness”

So-called “pandemic preparedness” exercises have been carried out most years since 2005 and can be traced at least as far back as Operation Dark Winter in 2001 (O’Toole et al., 2002). Names such as Tara O’ Toole, Tom Inglesby, and Robert Kadlec attach themselves repeatedly to such exercises, as does Johns Hopkins University. In recent years, such exercises have become more frequent, including Clade-X (2018), Crimson Contagion (2019), Event 201 (2019), SPARS (Brunson et al., 2020), and Catastrophic Contagion (2022). In England, 11 such exercises were carried out between 2015 and 2019 (Dyer, 2021).

How serious is the “pandemic” threat that demands all this “preparedness”? According to Rancourt et al. (2021, p. 137), “No [WHO-]declared pandemic (1957–58, 1968, 2009) has ever caused a detectable increase in yearly all-cause mortality in the USA, since 1900, except 1918, which has been incorrectly assigned as an influenza pandemic.” Most deaths attributed to the “Spanish flu” were in fact the result of secondary bacterial pneumonia and would have been preventable had antibiotics been invented (National Institutes of Health, 2008). The 1957–58 and 1968 outbreaks killed ca. 1 million people each (mostly older adults), while “swine flu” killed between 123,000 and 203,000 people (WHO, 2019a, p. 7). To put these figures in context, 290,000 to 650,000 people die of seasonal influenza every year, and 1.6 million people die of tuberculosis (at a far younger average age), meaning that WHO-declared “pandemics” have “killed far fewer people and at an older age than most other major infectious diseases” (Bell, 2022). “Pandemic preparedness” therefore makes little sense from a global health perspective.

Common to “pandemic preparedness” simulations is a failure to consider how to preserve constitutional rights during a pandemic and the promotion instead of a military-style response:

The simulations war-gamed how to use police powers to detain and quarantine citizens, how to impose martial law, how to control messaging by deploying propaganda, how to employ censorship to silence dissent, and how to mandate masks, lockdowns, and coercive vaccinations and conduct track-and-trace surveillance among potentially reluctant populations. (Kennedy Jr., 2021, p. 382)

“Pandemic preparedness” is a pretext for moving society in the direction of martial law. It is code for what used to be called “military readiness” (Watt, 2023), cloaked in the garb of public health, because the public is the target.

Despite the bogusness of “pandemic preparedness,” the transnational ruling class now seeks to amend the 2005 International Health Regulations and introduce a WHO Pandemic Treaty that would legally cede national sovereignty to the WHO Director-General when it comes to “pandemic response.” This opens the door to a global health dictatorship able to decree compulsory “lockdowns,” “vaccinations,” and the centralisation of health data surveillance tied to a global digital passport and ID system (Kheriaty, 2022). Countries will be financially incentivised to report disease outbreaks, but will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions if they do not toe the WHO line, making future PHEIC declarations more likely, not less, especially if such a declaration can be based on the precautionary principle rather than an actual crisis (Knightly, 2022).

This entire scam, which ultimately seeks to institute a world state via the intermediary mechanism of medical martial law, is premised on the need to prepare for what Gates has repeatedly referred to as “the next pandemic,” involving “a different pathogen” and possible bioterrorism (Gates, 2020b, 2021; Gates & Gates, 2021; Gilchrist, 2022). GAVI ran a series of articles on its website between March and May 2021 on candidates for the next pandemic. Warren Buffett claimed in July 2021: “There will be another pandemic” (“Billionaire Warren Buffett predicts new pandemic,” 2021). According to Fauci in April 2023, “if we really want to prevent the next pandemic – and there will be one – there will absolutely be an outbreak of another pandemic […]” (cited in Fleetwood, 2023).

International organisations followed suit. On December 29, 2020, the head of the WHO emergencies programme, Mark Ryan, warned: “This [pandemic] is not necessarily the big one” (cited in Steinbuch, 2020). On March 1, 2021, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen warned that the EU must prepare for an “era of pandemics” (cited in Fleming, 2021). On April 20, 2021, the UK Government (2021) announced a “new global partnership launched to fight future pandemics” On May 24, 2021, the WHO Director-General noted the “evolutionary certainty that there will be another virus with the potential to be more transmittable and more deadly than this one” (International Schiller Institute, 2021).

These attempts to normalise the dubious “pandemic” concept, as though “pandemics” could occur every few years, getting progressively more severe, bear no relation to scientific reality. In truth, since the advent of antibiotics, there has never been a “pandemic” that poses significantly more risk to human health than other diseases. “Covid-19,” with an average death age of over 80 in England and Wales (ONS, 2021), was anything but the existential threat the media made it out to be (see Chap. 4). The idea that we need to prepare for an “era of pandemics,” given the difficulty of identifying any convincing “pandemic” in the last century, is risible.

The “Virus”

Does SARS-CoV-2 Exist?

The WHO (2020) announced that a novel coronavirus was “isolated on 7 January, 2020.” Scientific research teams from around the world in 2020 claimed to have “isolated” the virus (Harcourt et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Matsuyama et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020).

However, “isolation” in Virology does not mean what the layman might expect, i.e. to separate an object from everything that is not that object. Rather, in the case of “SARS-CoV-2,” “isolation” begins as follows:

Oropharyngeal samples are diluted with viral transfer medium containing nasopharyngeal swabs and antibiotics (Nystadin, penicillin-streptomycin 1:1 dilution) at 1:4 ratio and incubated for 1 hour at 4°C, before being inoculated onto Vero cells. Inoculated Vero cells were cultured at 37°C, 5% CO2 in 1× Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) supplemented with 2% fetal bovine serum and penicillin-streptomycin. (Kim et al., 2020)

In other words, to “isolate” “SARS-CoV-2,” it is first necessary to add Nystatin and penicillin–streptomycin, then to add the resultant mixture to African green monkey kidney epithelial cells, which have themselves been cultured in DMEM, foetal bovine serum, and penicillin–streptomycin. This metaphorical “brew” of ingredients is then left to “simmer” (incubate). Is this science, or is it witchcraft?

The different genetic elements are given time to mix with one another, in ways that may be unanticipated or unknown—Mikovits, for instance, alleges that the U.S. blood supply became contaminated with XMRV through such processes (Mikovits & Heckenlively, 2020). Finally, “virus replication and isolation are confirmed through cytopathic effects, gene detection, and electron microscopy” (Kim et al., 2020). Each of these three methods is problematic, however, for the following reasons.

Cytopathic Effects

In the case of “SARS-CoV-2,” a CDC study shows cytopathic effects in monkey kidney cells (Harcourt et al., 2020) following the addition of amphotericin B, which is known to be toxic to kidneys (Sabra & Branch, 1990). Is “SARS-CoV-2” causing the kidney cells to degenerate, or is amphotericin B? Or are any of the other elements of the Dulbecco minimal essential medium, including 10% foetal bovine serum, penicillin–streptomycin, and antibiotics/antimycotics (Harcourt et al., 2020)? Or, is a combination of these various ingredients causing the observed cytopathic effects? What controlled studies have been done to find out?

In the CDC study, no cytopathic effect was observed “in any of the cell lines except in Vero [monkey] cells”; moreover, “HUH7.0 [human liver cells] and 293 T [human embryonic kidney] cells showed only modest viral replication, and A549 [human lung cancer] cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection” (Harcourt et al., 2020). Where, then, is the evidence of life-threatening disease in humans caused by “SARS-CoV-2” (Menage, 2020)?

Similar findings appear elsewhere. For example, Matsuyama et al. (2020) describe “the amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in the culture supernatants of […] A549 cells” as “low” and “measurably higher when VeroE6 cells were used.” Zhou et al. (2020) claim “to have “successfully isolated the virus […] from both Vero E6 and Huh7 [human liver] cells […] Clear cytopathogenic effects were observed in cells after incubation for three days (Extended Data Fig. 6a, b).” However, only Vero E6 cells, and not human cells, feature in those figures.

Gene Detection

On January 10, 2020, the first “coronavirus genome from a case of a respiratory disease from the Wuhan outbreak” was published (Wuhan-Hu-1, GenBank accession number MN908947), and on January 12, five more sequences were added to the GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data) database (Corman et al., 2020b). Incredibly, on January 13—one day after those sequences being published—Corman et al. (2020a) published a “protocol and preliminary review” for “Diagnostic detection of Wuhan coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR.” In only 24 hours, apparently, the authors managed to analyse the newly available sequences alongside 729 SARS-CoV sequences, conduct multiple tests of their own, design a new PCR protocol involving the first primers and probes targeting the virus, write up, and publish their findings! This 24-hour window is as implausible as the one on January 21–22 involving double-blind peer-review of the flawed Eurosurveillance paper based on this research (Corman et al., 2020b; cf. Borger et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the resultant “Drosten protocol” was accepted by the WHO without question.

Corman et al. (2020b) admit that their study proceeded “without having virus material available.” In other words, the WHO-adopted Drosten PCR protocol was based on a computer sequence from a gene bank, not an actual viral isolate. As Kevin Corbett puts it, “They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology […] This is basically a computer virus” (cited in Farber, 2020). It is unclear whether anything in nature corresponds to that which is designated “SARS-CoV-2”: no laboratory or institution provides certified pure (i.e. unadulterated with other sources of genetic material) samples of “SARS-CoV-2,” as at least 211 FOIA requests made in 35 countries had confirmed by August 2022 (Massey, 2022). Public Health England’s (2021c) boilerplate reply refers to the suspect Eurosurveillance paper above in circular fashion. In Massey’s (2022) view, without “SARS-CoV-2” having been isolated/purified in any meaningful fashion, and in the absence of controlled experiments, there is no scientific proof that the virus—on which the entire “Covid-19” operation was premised—exists.

Fragments of a hoof, a tail hair, and a horn are not enough to deduce the existence of a unicorn, Cowan (2020) teases, yet the principle of using computerised genome sequencing to create a viral genome out of fragments of genetic material is very similar. As of April 1, 2022, Bailey (2022) notes, 9.6 million “SARS-CoV-2 genomes” had been uploaded to GISAID, yet “not one of these in silico-assembled genomic sequences has ever been shown to exist in nature, let alone come from inside a disease-causing particle.”

Electron Microscopy

Everyone is familiar with the computer-generated images of the “SARS-CoV-2” virion. When Bill Gates appears in videos holding a model of that virion, the intention is to underscore the physical existence, appearance, and threat of the virus. Scientists staring down an electron microscope at a “SARS-CoV-2” virion should, presumably, see something similar, and electron microscopy images are indeed presented by Zhou et al., (2020, Fig. 6 g), Zhu et al., (2020, Fig. 3), and Park et al., (2020, Figs. 1C and 1D).

However, all is not as straightforward as it seems. In the 1970s, normal cellular components, such as phagocytic vacuoles, microvesicular bodies, and extracellular breakdown products, were often mistaken for viral particles in ultrastructural images (Cassol et al., 2020). Following the SARS outbreak of 2003, the CDC drew specific attention to the risk of mistaking coronavirus particles for normal cellular components, including “coated vesicles, multivesicular bodies, perichromatin granules, glycocalyceal bodies, and cellular projections” (Goldsmith et al., 2004, p. 325).

In the case of “SARS-CoV-2,” scientists sounded “a note of caution for inferring viral tissue infection by morphology alone using electron microscopy images from tissues obtained from biopsies or autopsy material in patients with COVID-19” (Cassol et al., 2020). For example, an inclusion within a podocyte in a case of thrombotic microangiopathy in a native kidney biopsy specimen falls within the diameter range for “SARS-CoV-2” (60–140 nm) and displays “an electron-dense rim likely representing endocytic coated vesicles,” resembling a viral corona (Cassol et al., 2020, Fig. 1A). Yet, it is not a viral particle.

No sharp distinction can be drawn between viruses and extracellular vesicles (EVs): “it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules” (Nolte-‘t Hoen et al., 2016). Because nearly all cells produce EVs, it is likely that “every viral preparation is in fact a mixture of virions and EVs” (Nolte-‘t Hoen et al., 2016). Different particle types exist along a spectrum, including “virus-like particles” which resemble an infectious virus particle yet contain no viral RNA (Nolte-‘t Hoen et al., 2016, Fig. 1). This means that alleged images of “SARS-CoV-2” might not be showing an infectious virus particle after all.

Implications

The scientific evidence in support of the existence of “SARS-CoV-2” is not as strong as one might reasonably expect. It rests on cytopathic tests where the cause of cell degeneration is unproven, gene sequencing where it is unclear that the assembled genome corresponds to anything in nature, and electron microscope images that do not necessarily show infectious virus particles. The onus, therefore, is on virologists to prove, or at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of “SARS-CoV-2” in ways that do not succumb to these methodological deficiencies, ideally via controlled studies. Given that world-transforming measures were enacted on the basis of “SARS-CoV-2” causing “Covid-19,” providing such proof is scientifically and morally imperative.

All other evidence of the existence of “SARS-CoV-2” lies in the secondary realm of epidemiology and appeals to symptoms/sickness, diagnostic testing for the presence of the alleged virus, and antibodies supposedly developed in response to the “virus.” Yet, there is no proof of what caused the symptoms/sickness, the testing is known to be bunk (see Chap. 4), and it is unclear how reliably antibodies can be tied back to “SARS-CoV-2” specifically, given that controlled experiments have not been done (Cowan, 2023).

In the absence of any compelling scientific evidence that “SARS-CoV-2” exists, the door is opened to possibly the biggest lie of all—namely, the existence of “SARS-CoV-2” itself. Seen through the lens of psychological operations, rather than virology/epidemiology, there are reasons to suspect foul play. Paraphrasing Yeadon (2023):

• The effects of a released bioweapon cannot be predicted with confidence, yet megalomaniac social engineers seek total control in everything they do.

• Molecular biology relies on computer sequencing, complex algorithms, and assumptions, all of which can be manipulated, making it easy to cheat.

• If “SARS-CoV-2” were real and as deadly as claimed, why the need to fudge case and mortality data (see Chap. 4)?

• The “lab leak” narrative, pushed by state and corporate media in 2022/23 following vigorous denial in 2020/21, begs the question: did the “virus” originate in nature, or was it engineered in a lab? Either way, the media wants us to think that it is real, yet the media has lied about everything when it comes to “Covid-19.”

An important caveat should be added: even if “SARS-CoV-2” does exist, then its virulence in no way justifies the massively disproportionate measures that were taken to counter it.

Rebranding the Flu?

One of the most remarkable events of 2020/21 was the worldwide disappearance of influenza from the moment that “Covid-19” entered the scene (WHO, 2021; Public Health England, 2021a, Fig. 7, 2021b, Fig. 13). What explains this?

The most facile explanation is that non-pharmaceutical interventions intended to stop the spread of “Covid-19” also halted the spread of influenza. The following February 2021 headline from the Independent is representative: “Not a single case of flu detected by Public Health England this year as Covid restrictions suppress virus” (Lovett, 2021). If such measures were so effective that they eliminated influenza, they would surely also have suppressed “Covid-19,” but instead the latter was presented as an ever-present menace.

Hope-Simpson (1992, p. 119) identifies a “vanishing trick” performed by type A influenza virus in 1946–7, when a new strain of influenza, named “A prime” (written A’), replaced the original strain first discovered in 1932–33 across the world. Any analogy between 2020–21 and 1946–47, however, is forlorn. Hope-Simpson (1992) addresses new strains within the influenza virus, not the displacement of influenza itself by an alternative virus.

Studies of viral interference (the ability of one virus to reduce the effects of another) are in their infancy and interactions between viruses are “currently not well understood” (Sunde, 2021). Allowing Sunde the benefit of the doubt that viral interference nevertheless offers a plausible explanation for the disappearance of influenza in 2020/21, the implication is that “SARS-CoV-2” was already everywhere in March/April of 2020 for influenza to have vanished. If so, all efforts to “stop the spread” of “SARS-CoV-2,” including “lockdowns,” mask wearing, social distancing, hand sanitising, etc., were pointless.

Every explanation of influenza’s alleged disappearance contradicts the “Covid-19” narrative in one way or another. Is the disappearance of the flu—something which has never happened before—another Big Lie? When the northern hemisphere entered the traditional flu season in 2020, both the U.S. CDC and Public Health England decided, almost simultaneously, to merge influenza and “Covid-19” death reporting. The CDC (2020) announced on October 6, 2020, that “Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the system will suspend data collection for the 2020–21 influenza season,” adding that “COVID-19 coded deaths were added to P&I to create the PIC (pneumonia, influenza, and/or COVID-19) classification.” Public Health England (2020) announced that “as of 8 October 2020, the information in this report will be published in a combined Weekly flu and COVID-19 Surveillance Report on GOV.UK.” This seemingly coordinated move, at exactly the time when flu cases normally start to surge, is suspicious, because it made it easy, in theory, to recategorise influenza deaths as “Covid-19” deaths.

Perhaps influenza deaths were already being miscategorised as “Covid-19” deaths. One possibility is that “Mandatory Covid-19 tests, run at high cycle thresholds and suffering from cross-reactivity with other pathogens […] resulted in false positives for Covid-19, when in fact the pathogen causing symptoms may have been flu” (Neil et al., 2023). This would explain, for instance, how “Covid-19” appeared to form reliable epidemiological data from country to country, something which otherwise would be difficult, though not impossible, to fake if there were no “SARS-CoV-2.” Those testing positive for “SARS-CoV-2” were told to “self-isolate” for up to 14 days, well beyond the four days needed for an accurate flu test, so even if a flu test were later taken, it would be too late (Neil et al., 2023). Diagnosing influenza out of season also meets with “clinical and bureaucratic barriers” that “Covid-19” diagnosis does not, owing to “powerful incentives directed by a centralised bureaucracy.”

Prior to “Covid-19,” there were “290,000–650,000 influenza-related respiratory deaths” each year (WHO, 2019b). If influenza deaths were redesignated as “Covid-19” deaths in 2020/21, that would automatically add hundreds of thousands of deaths to the worldwide “Covid-19” annual death toll (which does not reset at the start of each year as for any other disease, but is rather kept cumulatively on the WHO Covid-19 dashboard to exaggerate the severity of the disease in the minds of the public). “Globally, the flu almost completely disappeared throughout 2020 and 2021,” notes Knightly (2023), but “meanwhile, a new disease called ‘Covid,’ which has [near] identical symptoms and a similar mortality rate to influenza, was apparently affecting all the people normally affected by the flu.” This seems quite the coincidence.

The CDC (2021) acknowledges that it is hard to tell the difference between “Covid-19” and influenza “based on symptoms alone”; the only clear difference in symptoms is that “Covid-19” may result in loss of taste or smell (but so can hay fever). Additional complications associated with the two diseases are again almost identical. The claimed rate of asymptomatic carriage is 77% for influenza (Hayward et al., 2014) and 78% for “Covid-19” (Schraer, 2020)—almost identical.

Whitty chose April Fool’s Day in 2021 (with connotations of mockery) to announce that “Britain will treat Covid ‘like the Flu’ in future” (Boyd, 2021). Gates in May 2022 described “Covid-19” as “kind of like the flu although a bit different,” disingenuously claiming that that it was not known in spring 2020 that “Covid-19” had a low fatality rate and killed mostly the elderly (“Bill Gates says COVID is ‘kind of like the flu,’” 2022). Yet, this is precisely what was known, as when, for instance, Ioannidis (2020b) wrote: “Among people < 70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.26% with median of 0.05%.” In March 2020, Ioannidis (2020a) wrote: “If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year.” Had the public been reassured that “Covid-19” was similar to influenza, however, the fear campaign would have fallen flat and the resultant “measures” would been rejected outright (Chossudovsky, 2021).

“Whatever Covid actually is,” Yeadon (2023) writes, “I don’t believe that what was called influenza disappeared conveniently in early 2020. It’s another lie. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.” Based on the above evidence, it seems hard to disagree with that conclusion.

The “Vaccines”

“Covid-19 Vaccines” as Military (not Pharmaceutical) Products

In the United States, the “Covid-19” injectables are, legally speaking, military products that evade normal commercial and clinical rules and procedures under 10 U.S. Code § 4021 (Latypova, 2022a, 2022b; cf. Watt, 2023). Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, undisclosed military countermeasures can be deployed at the sole discretion of the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary in the event of a public health emergency (for which declaration no criteria exist). This is what happened in March 2020, when Emergency Use Authorization for medical countermeasures was granted under 21 USC 360bbb-3(k), such that those countermeasures “shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation.” The Food and Drug Administration (2020, p. 7, n.6) was aware of that law, citing it in a document dated October 22, 2020, and thus of the legal status of the “Covid-19 vaccines” as non-medicines. The so-called “clinical trials” for the “vaccines” continued nevertheless, with the regulators providing “theatre” or “performance art” to deceive the public into believing that pharmaceutical products were being developed (Latypova, 2022a, 2022b).

Operation Warp Speed (OWS), the U.S. project to develop, produce, and distribute 300 million doses of a “coronavirus vaccine” by January 2021, was compared to the Manhattan Project by President Trump when he unveiled it on May 16, 2020 (Smith, 2020), a clear allusion to top-secret military technology. “Warp speed” is a science fiction concept associated with Star Trek, and the possibility that the “Covid-19 vaccines” contain black technology is discussed below.

OWS was led, not by scientists and healthcare specialists, but by the military. An organisational chart shows that 61 of the 90 leadership positions in OWS were occupied by DoD officials, including four generals (Florko, 2020). The military’s role was not merely to assist with logistics; rather, the DoD was “in full control” of the “vaccination” programme from its inception, including “development, manufacturing, clinical trials, quality assurance, distribution and administration” (Altman et al., 2023). The White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator was Deborah Birx, whose colourful scarves created a civilian appearance while media reports touted her as the next head of the HHS, a civilian agency (Cancryn et al., 2020); Birx, however, holds the rank of Colonel. The “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout in the United States, as in Europe, was a camouflaged military operation from start to finish (Ponton, 2023a, 2023b).

Under Operation Warp Speed, contracts were clandestinely awarded to “vaccine” companies via Advanced Technology International, which has close ties to the CIA (Webb, 2020). The use of a non-governmental intermediary meant that regulatory oversight and transparency conferred by regular federal contracting mechanisms could be bypassed. HHS, for example, which was supposed to be overseeing OWS, claimed to have “no records” of a $1.6 billion contract awarded to Novavax (Lupkin, 2020). This is how deep state operations work, with public bodies left clueless about what is really going on.

How was it possible to manufacture billions of doses within such a short time frame? In Latypova’s (2022a, 45:35) assessment, the pharmaceutical companies lacked the required capacity to achieve this, and it was only possible because of the “established defence contracting infrastructure” put in place by BARDA years earlier. A slide on “OWS/BARDA Vaccine Manufacturing” from a presentation by the HHS Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response divides the manufacturing “portfolio” into two: “vaccines” on the left and “vaccine supporting efforts” on the right (Latypova, 2022a, 44:50). Under “vaccines” fall the various manufacturers, while on the right are Marathon Medical, Emergent Biosolutions, Smiths Medical, Cytiva, BD, Corning, Grand River, Ology, Retractable Technologel Inc., SiO2, The Texas A&M University System, and Snapdragon. All the “vaccine” manufacturers except for Moderna are marked as “Demo,” whereas nearly all of the “vaccine supporting efforts” are marked as “manufacturing” and/or “capacity.” Latypova (2022b) proposes that “Demo” refers to Other Transaction Authority, a method of contracting favoured by the DoD, which allows vaguely defined “prototypes” or “demonstrations” to evade regulatory scrutiny. The real manufacturing/capacity-building, she proposes, has been done elsewhere, with Big Pharma content to make vast profits, with freedom from liability (Health & Human Services Department, 2020), in exchange for maintaining the charade that a “public health” crisis is being met with “pharmaceutical” products.

The “Covid-19 vaccines” in the United States do not meet any normal pharmaceutical distribution rules for flagging safety and quality issues in the supply chain (Latypova, 2022b). Unit doses are not barcoded and traceable, and alleged cold chain storage requirements mean that they are handled through a “black box” DoD distribution system. Most suspiciously, Latypova adds, “Independent testing of the vials for verification of the product conformity to label is prohibited”—unsurprisingly, given what they have been shown to contain (Hughes, 2022c).

I have explained previously why “Covid-19 vaccines” do not qualify as vaccines (Hughes, 2022a, p. 210). Kingston (2023) argues that they are, legally speaking, bioweapons, not pharmaceutical products. They “do not prevent infection or disease, were not conducted under bona fide research, and serve no peaceful purpose (meaning they cause harm),” thus meeting the definition of a biological weapon under 18 USC 175. Therefore, to call the “Covid-19 vaccines” “bioweapons” is not hyperbole; rather, “bioweapon” is “the only accurate legal term” to describe them. The plan to “disguise bioweapons intentionally deployed against the public,” in Kingston’s (2022) view, represents “one of the most evil deceptions in the history of humanity.”

In a biopolitical era where control is exercised directly over human bodies (Agamben, 1998), the so-called “vaccines” in principle make ideal bioweapons, because their contents are injected straight into the blood, breaching the body’s natural immune defences (skin, the gut, the nasopharyngeal cavity, etc.). If the people are the undeclared enemy in the war for technocracy, then those injections can penetrate behind enemy lines.

Ulterior Motives

What exactly is the purpose of the military injectables masquerading as “Covid-19 vaccines”? Evidently, it is not to safeguard “public health,” as evidenced by the record number and variety of reported serious adverse reactions (OpenVAERS, n.d.; MHRA, n.d.; WHO, n.d.-a [search “COVID-19 vaccine”]). UK ONS data shows that the “vaccines” kill more people than they save (Kirsch, 2022a). There is a tight statistical correlation between the number of shots taken and the increased likelihood of death (Oller & Santiago, 2022; Santiago & Oller, 2023; Chudov, 2022a). Governments’ failure to halt the “vaccine” rollout long ago in the face of such evidence is sinister, if not treasonous.

A damning 180-page study by Rancourt et al. (2023), based on analysis of all-cause mortality data (ACM) from 17 equatorial and Southern-Hemisphere countries, finds “no association in time between COVID-19 vaccination and any proportionate reduction in ACM” (p. 2), i.e. the “vaccines” do not save lives. On the contrary, nine of the 17 countries showed no excess mortality for ca. one year after the WHO “pandemic declaration” on March 11, 2020, yet excess mortality began to appear around the time of the “vaccine” rollout. In Chile and Peru, where the most detailed data is available, booster shots correlated with unprecedented peaks in ACM for the elderly in the summer. The all-ages vaccine-dose fatality rate, i.e. the ratio of inferred vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a population, comes out as 0.126 (± 0.004)%, for a “virus” with a 0.05% IFR for the under-70s (Ioannidis, 2021), implying ca. 17 million deaths worldwide from the 13.5 billion injections delivered by September 2023—1000 times higher than has been reported in clinical trials, adverse effect monitoring, and cause-of-death statistics from death certificates (Rancourt et al., 2023, p. 3).

Consistent with a depopulation agenda (Chudov, 2022b), birth rates since the “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout dropped precipitously in 19 European countries (an average 7% decline) (Pfeiffer, 2022), including Germany and Sweden (by 14% and 10%, respectively) (Bujard & Andersson, 2022), Switzerland (by 10–15%) (Swiss Policy Research, 2022), and the United Kingdom (11.2%) (Naked Emperor, 2023). In New Zealand, birth rates between July 2022 and June 2023 were 28% lower than during the corresponding period in 2018/19 (Hatchard, 2023). Additional concerns have been raised about the potential gene drive application of the injections, “a highly controversial new genetic extinction technology” funded by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Gates Foundation that renders offspring incapable of reproduction (Latham, 2017)—an effect that would remain hidden for a generation, but which would have radical effects in terms of global population reduction.

mRNA injections allegedly work by deceiving the immune system: the modification “makes the RNA look more like something that the cell would produce itself, because invaders such as bacteria cannot usually make these modifications to their own mRNA” (Dolgin, 2015). In the case of the “Covid-19” injections, “the modified nucleobase helps cloak mRNA vaccines from the immune system” (Nance & Meier, 2021, p. 753). On this basis, Santiago (2022b, p. 631) asks, “would it be an impossible leap of logic to suppose that serious deception is taking place on a worldwide scale?” He proposes that the “Covid-19” injections reverse transcribe XNA into the human genome to redirect human evolution (Santiago, 2022a, p. 588). Although his argument is somewhat speculative, it underscores the fact that we simply do not know what exactly has been shot into billions of people worldwide, or what the implications are for humanity.

There appears to be a concerted effort to use “vaccines” to “programme” human bodies. According to Moderna CEO, Stéphane Bancel, “mRNA is like software” (Garde, 2017). Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer, Tal Zaks (n.d.), claimed in a TEDx talk that “we are actually hacking the software of life.” This resembles Harari’s (2017) claim that “we are learning […] how to hack humans, how to engineer them, how to manufacture them.” Moderna describes its “Covid-19 vaccine” as “an operating system on a computer.” President Biden’s Executive Order of September 12, 2022, calls for the development of “genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers […]” (White House, 2022). All of which begs the question: is the transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022b) trying, under cover of “vaccination,” to hack the human body for eugenics purposes, much as the NSA, in conjunction with Big Tech, managed to gain backdoor access to virtually all computers?

Or, is the goal to hook human bodies up to the technocratic control grid through convergent IT/Bio/Nano revolutions for purposes of human enslavement, i.e. infiltration of human bodies with covert military technologies? (see Chap. 8). The world was deceived about the contents of the “Covid-19” injectables (Hughes, 2022c), which “enjoy a largely positive public image as pharmaceutical, rather than technological, tools” (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022a). It is often overlooked, in this context, that the infamous “Lockstep” scenario by the Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network (2010), which eerily foreshadows the response to “Covid-19,” appeared in a document whose title (Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development) foregrounds technology, not public health.

Doctors for COVID Ethics: A Critique

Despite abundant evidence that the “Covid-19 vaccines” are military, rather than pharmaceutical products, whose purpose can only be nefarious, prominent critics of the “vaccines” remain wedded to the pharmaceutical paradigm. Doctors for COVID Ethics, for instance, argues that “the risks and the manifest harm which we have seen with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were predictable from first principles of immunology” (D4CE, 2023, pp. 4–6). Three key mechanisms are identified to account for the toxicity of mRNA vaccines: “1. the chemical toxicity of lipid nanoparticles, 2. direct toxicity of the spike protein, whose expression is induced by the vaccines, and 3. the destructive effects of the immune response to the spike protein” (DC4E, 2023, p. 181). This resembles the five sources of harm identified by Parry et al. (2023), i.e. inflammatory properties of lipid-nanoparticles, toxicity of the spike protein produced by gene codes, N1-methylpseudouridine in the synthetic mRNA, widespread biodistribution of the mRNA and DNA codes, and human cells producing a foreign protein in ribosomes that can engender autoimmunity. Because of these mechanisms, all future mRNA “vaccines” can be expected to cause harm, with clinical trials already underway for such “vaccines” against cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and respiratory syncytial virus (D4CE, 2023, p. 181).

The value of the Doctors for COVID Ethics analysis is to show that, even if we accept that we are dealing with pharmaceutical products designed to trigger an immune response, “mRNA vaccines” are unsafe from first principles. Therefore, no case can be made for their clinical usage.

However, D4CE seems closed to the possibility that the “mRNA vaccines” might not be intended as pharmaceutical products. For example, it questions whether “mRNA vaccine” toxicity is caused by the “vaccines working as intended,” i.e. by triggering an immune system response, or, rather, by “undeclared ingredients or contaminants,” noting, “This question cannot be dismissed out of hand” (2023, p. 1). Alternatives to the “working as intended” hypothesis, however, are discarded by the end of the first page. Confirmation bias is, thus, strong in the book, and some important counterfactuals are not considered. For example, what if the “Covid-19 vaccines,” as military products, are not primarily intended to trigger an immune response? Latypova (2022a, 20:40), for instance, claims that whatever is being produced in human bodies because of the “mRNA vaccines” is not the “SARS-CoV-2” spike protein, since the molecular weights of the two proteins (180 kDA vs. 141 kDA) do not match.

What proportion of people have been injured and/or killed by the “Covid-19 vaccines”? Rancourt et al. (2023, p. 3) place the all-ages vaccine-dose fatality rate at 0.126%. Though unacceptable, should it not be much higher if “mRNA vaccines” cause harm from first principles, following 21 months (to September 2022) of “the destructive effects of the immune response to the spike protein” (D4CE, 2023, p. 181)? Perhaps more time is needed for the full impact of the injections to become clear, but the evidence seems inconsistent with a systemic and predictable harming of the “vaccinated” population. On the other hand, if the “vaccines” are covert military technologies (cf. Chap. 8), then their covert deployment would depend on them doing least harm, notwithstanding “collateral damage” arising from injecting novel technologies into human bodies on such a massive scale.

By September 2022 (when the UK MHRA stopped publishing figures), there were 464,000 Yellow Card reports for “Covid-19 vaccines,” accounting for 1.5 million reactions and 2272 deaths (MHRA, n.d.). Traditionally, such reports only account for 10% of the estimated total, although the MHRA (2019) maintains that publicity around “Covid-19 vaccines” renders the 10% figure unreliable. Generously assuming the 10% figure to be reliable, however, it implies up to 4.64 million “vaccine”-injured people in the UK, out of a “vaccinated” adult population of 54 million (UKHSA, 2022, Table 5), i.e. 8.6%, with a 0.042% mortality rate. If “mRNA vaccines” cause harm from first principles, and if “the adenovirus-based vaccines produced by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have fairly similar profiles of adverse events to the mRNA vaccines” (D4CE, 2023, p. 182), then why was at least 91.4% of the UK “vaccinated” population not injured after 21 months? And why did 99.96% survive?

There is reason to suspect that some “Covid-19 vaccine” vials contain no mRNA. Nagase (2022), for instance, identifies structures in the Pfizer and Moderna vials that resemble biological entities, yet which contain neither nitrogen nor phosphorus, two of the six “building blocks of life,” implying that they cannot be biological (cf. Hughes, 2022c, p. 460). Kirsch (2022b) claims that an unnamed colleague conducted mass spectrometry on two Pfizer and two Moderna vials and found phosphorus in none of them, again implying no mRNA.

Because of the known variability between batches, failure to find mRNA in some vials by no means precludes the possibility that it will be found in others. Yet, one batch in every 200 is over 50 times more deadly than the rest (Hill, 2022; Wilson, 2022; cf. Schmeling et al., 2023), which is too radical a discrepancy to be attributed to bad manufacturing processes, as per D4CE’s (2023, p. 1) analysis. It seems likely that we are dealing here with a worldwide experiment without informed consent, in which certain batches were more toxic than others by design, perhaps to calibrate the tolerance of different groups of people to different levels of whatever is in the shots. At any rate, the deaths of “bad batch” victims cannot be attributed to a general theory of mRNA toxicity.

D4CE (2023, Chap. 4) utilises histology, in particular based on autopsy reports and the work of the late Arne Burkhardt, to claim the circulation of the spike protein throughout the body. Yet, using a non-specific antigen test to infer infection with “SARS-CoV-2” offers a weak standard of proof; the alleged spike proteins are not assayed for directly (Cowan, 2023).

DNA Contamination in the Vials?

At least three genomics scientists claim to have discovered extremely high levels of plasmid DNA contamination in the Pfizer/BioNTech vials, namely, Kevin McKernan (McKernan et al., 2023), Phillip Buckhaults (see Demasi, 2023), and Jürgen O. Kirchner (see Kogon, 2023). If what they claim is true, then debates about whether mRNA from the “vaccines” can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells recede in significance, because DNA was already present in the vials.

Pfizer/BioNTech used two different production methods for its “vaccine”: the first, in clinical trials, used PCR to amplify the DNA template used for production of the mRNA (“a highly pure mRNA product”), and the second, for purposes of large-scale manufacturing, used bacteria to make large quantities of DNA plasmid which, in turn, were used to provide the blueprint for the mRNA (Demasi, 2023). The DNA should, at that stage, have been removed to “safe” levels (if there is such a thing), yet, if McKernan, Buckhaults, and Kirchner are correct, preliminary indications are that the DNA contamination level is at least ten times the “safe” level set by the EMA (Jones, 2023), or perhaps 188–509 times higher (Speicher et al., 2023, p. 3). Normally, bacterial DNA does not survive long enough to enter cells, but if present in the “vaccines” will allegedly be packaged in lipid nanoparticles that are taken up by cells. Widespread biodistribution then implies the risk of foreign DNA interfering with cell function throughout the body, potentially accounting for the extremely wide range of reported serious adverse reactions (Hodgkinson, 2023). Unlike mRNA, DNA implies genetic changes that may be permanent and passed down to the next generation.

Not unlike the Vanden Bossche open letter about the potential for the “Covid-19 vaccines” to lead to immune escape (see Chap. 4), we are faced here with some alarmist claims unsupported by reliable scientific evidence. McKernan et al. (2023) admit: “These vials were sent to us anonymously in the mail without cold packs” and “All of the monovalent vaccines [but not the bivalent vaccines] in this study are past the expiration date listed on the vial,” implying no adequate chain of custody and tests conducted on vials which would not have been administered to patients. McKernan’s second preprint (Speicher et al., 2023, p. 3), released in October 2023, notes that its findings need to be “replicated under forensic conditions.” As of December 2023, neither preprint had passed peer review.

The Kirchner data (as in Kogon, 2023) derive from an open letter to the German medical regulator (the Paul Ehrlich Institute) and have not been independently verified. Testimony by the triple- “vaccinated” Buckhaults to the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee is gushing in its praise for “mRNA vaccines,” pointing to their “revolutionary” future benefits (Demasi, 2023), much as Vanden Bossche’s (2021) ultimate solution is more and better “vaccines.”

It would be interesting to know why no one in the world detected DNA contamination in the “Covid-19 vaccines” for the whole of 2021 and 2022, and then suddenly it became a narrative in 2023. Are we looking here at science or propaganda? As with the focus on mRNA in the previous section, the focus on DNA here encourages us to think in strictly biological terms. Although the “vaccines” may well involve an attempt to manipulate cell biology (though not necessarily to produce viral spike protein), as military products they may also involve other technologies (see next section).

A legal case filed in the Australian Federal Court in July 2023, for which McKernan provides expert testimony, alleges that both DNA contamination and the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles fall under the legal definition of a GMO, with both allegedly being able to enter the cell nucleus and integrate into the human genome (Barnett, 2023). The case argues that the Office of Gene Technology Regulator, and not the Therapeutic Goods Administration, should have been the appropriate regulator of the “mRNA vaccines.”

The intellectual foundations of the case are laid out by Gillespie (2023). Aside from the unverified claims of McKernan, Gillespie’s argument rests mainly on just two peer-reviewed studies. One of them (Domazet-Lošo, 2022) is purely theoretical, arguing that a longstanding literature on the biology of retroposition was ignored in the development of “Covid-19 vaccines.” This tells us nothing, however, about whether the “vaccines” do, in fact, induce retroposition, hence Domazet-Lošo’s call for experimental studies to find out. The other paper (Aldén et al., 2022) claims that Pfizer’s BNT162b2 can be reverse-transcribed into human DNA using a human liver cell line, but this is a single in vitro finding that is yet to be independently replicated. A third peer-reviewed study, which claims that mice pre-exposed to a mRNA-LNP platform can pass down acquired immunity to influenza to their offspring, is also cited, yet its authors note that it is unknown “whether any such immune inheritance may be observed in humans vaccinated with mRNA vaccines” (Qin et al., 2022). Gillespie (2023, p. 944) additionally cites an unnamed “PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology,” who “consulted with several similarly qualified colleagues,” including a “Ph.D. in Genomics,” who in turn cites a 2022 preprint and claims “it has been suggested that […].” Who are these mystery figures, and where is their peer-reviewed evidence? In sum, the scientific evidence base for the Australian court case is not robust.

According to a headline by the self-styled World Council for Health (WCH, 2023), “WCH Expert Panel Finds Cancer-Promoting DNA Contamination in Covid-19 Vaccines.” The panel, however, “found” no such thing: rather, these are McKernan’s claims (who sits on the panel), and to a lesser extent those of Brigitte König (who worked with Kirchner). The other panel members (Sucharit Bhakdi, Peter McCullough, Byram Bridle, Jessica Rose, Alexandra Henrion-Caude, and Janci Lindsay) merely endorse the claims. Consensus is not the same as proof of scientific discovery.

Evidence of Undisclosed Technologies in the “Covid-19 Vaccines”

Accounts which take for granted that “mRNA vaccines” are what they appear to be necessarily ignore/suppress/dismiss evidence to the contrary. Much of that evidence is collected in Hughes (2022c), which summarises the findings of 26 independent researchers and research teams who conducted microscopic and spectroscopic analysis of the contents of “Covid-19 vaccine” vials and “vaccinated” blood. Surprise findings include sharp-edged geometric structures, fibrous or tube-like structures, crystalline formations, “microbubbles,” and possible self-assembling nanotechnology. Published literature on vaccine contaminants before “Covid-19” does not feature such artefacts, which experienced doctors and scientists claim never to have seen before in their professional experience (Hughes, 2022c, pp. 464, 470, 488, 567–8, 575).

Studies by a team of Australian scientists (in Hughes, 2022c, p. 549), Taylor (see Hughes, 2023, 50:25), and Nixon (see Mangiaracina, 2022) point towards EMF-responsive components in the “Covid-19 vaccines.” Nixon has uniquely recorded videos of what happens to the “vaccine” contents under the microscope over extended periods of time (see the “Key Videos” section on drdavidnixon.com); the results show structures and processes too advanced/complex to be naturally occurring crystals (cf. also the imagery in Hughes, 2022c, pp. 510–514, 535). Some structures visibly resemble electronic circuitry, according to electrical engineers (see Hughes, 2022c, pp. 534, 555). Based on the resemblance of certain items found within the vials to published literature on (bio)nanotechnology, Andersen (2021) proposes that the “vaccines” enable an intracorporeal nanonetwork. It has been claimed, based on experimental findings, that “vaccinated” people emit hexadecimal MAC addresses (Sarlangue et al., 2021), although adequately powered studies are needed to determine the truth of such claims (Hughes, 2023, 1:18:00; cf. Taylor, 2023).

Even before “Covid-19,” it was known that most vaccines contain a large array of undisclosed inorganic (typically metallic) contaminants, which are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable and are “capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way,” around the time of injection or much later, even more so as their number and synergic effect increase (Gatti & Montanari, 2017). Spectroscopic analysis of the “Covid-19 vaccine” contents reveals the presence of undisclosed exotic/toxic metals, including the highly toxic antimony (in Moderna only), caesium, barium, titanium, cerium, gadolinium, aluminium, silicon, bismuth, and vanadium (Vaccines Education Working Group, 2022; Young, 2021). The possible presence of graphene oxide, which is key to bio-nano engineering, has also been identified (Campra, 2021; UNIT, 2022; Young, 2021).

Countless online videos emerged in 2021 of people who had become magnetic at the injection site and sometimes elsewhere (“Magnetgate 3,” 2021). Contrary to “fact checkers’” breathless reassurances that this was a “hoax” or an online “challenge” and that none of the “vaccines’” disclosed ingredients contain anything magnetic, most of the evidence appears genuine and requires explanation.

Especially in the context of the IT/Bio/Nano era (see Chap. 8), this is a lot of empirical evidence to write off, yet commentators hesitate to entertain the possibility of undisclosed technologies in the “Covid-19 vaccines” for several reasons. For starters, it sounds preposterous—the stuff of sci-fi—and falls too far outside the spectrum of socially acceptable opinion. This, however, merely reflects the limitations of human psychology and groupthink; it is not evidence-based science. Military-grade propaganda means that the public’s perceptual parameters remain limited to the virus, the spike protein, mRNA/DNA, and dangers deriving from the disclosed “vaccine” ingredients. Most doctors, virologists, microbiologists, etc., know very little about bio-nanotechnology, so are unqualified to comment and understandably prefer to stick to their fields of expertise. Fear of reprisal (e.g. hit pieces by the media, attacks by colleagues, withdrawal of medical licences, harassment, and threats to life) disincentivise scientists/doctors from publicly challenging orthodoxy. Pied pipers for the intelligence agencies (widely promoted “controlled opposition” figures) are deployed to win the trust of sceptics and steer them away from the truth.

We need to be open to the possibility of black technology (i.e. classified military technology) within the “Covid-19” injectables, because we are dealing here with a deep state military operation. Galison (2004, p. 231) estimates that classified scientific research is “on the order of five to ten times larger than the open literature that finds its way to our libraries.” Thus, it is “we in the open world […] who are living in a modest information booth facing outwards, our unseeing backs to a vast and classified empire we barely know.” In other words, the public has no idea of the full extent of what is technologically possible behind the scenes. In the undeclared Omniwar against humanity, black technology constitutes an ideal weapon, as not only can it be deployed by stealth, but the public would not believe it to be real even if presented with the evidence (cf. Wood, 2011).

Cognitive Dissonance

Origins of the Concept

Despite the saturation of the official “Covid-19” narrative with deceit, most people cannot and will not see it. The reason for this has to do with “cognitive dissonance,” a term coined by Festinger (1957). Today, that term is often applied to those who are psychologically incapable of challenging official narratives because of the propaganda and other brainwashing techniques to which they have been subjected. “Exposure to new information may create cognitive elements that are dissonant with existing cognition,” Festinger writes, and the greater the dissonance, the greater the pressure to reduce it (1957, pp. 261, 263). Weltanschauungskrieg, or “worldview warfare” is the Nazi term from which the phrase “psychological warfare” is derived (Simpson, 1994, p. 24). When someone whose worldview has been shaped by propaganda encounters contrary information, they will automatically find ways of disregarding it. For example, the information may not register, it may be ignored, it may be denied, it may be denigrated as “conspiracy theory,” the topic of conversation may be instantly changed, or the source of the information may be attacked—anything to avoid confronting evidence that undermines the programming.

The totalitarian origins of cognitive dissonance are seldom discussed, yet the collective social dimension of what Festinger (1957) presents primarily in terms of individual psychology is extremely important. For once the Big Lie has been used to deceive the masses, “Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation” (Hitler, 1939, p. 183). The Big Lie thus persists. “In totalitarian surroundings,” Meerloo (1956, p. 204) writes, hardly anyone keeps his thinking free of contagion, and nearly everyone becomes, albeit temporarily, the victim of delusion.” In other words, indoctrination/brainwashing is contagious: the greater the number of people who believe something to be true (or who remain silent in the face of lies), the more pressure there is on non-believers to conform to the majority opinion.

This insight was weaponised by the Rockefellers using Reesian methods: “any Reesian form of social organisation will tend to cause mass brainwashing in the members of such a group if the stress applied is sufficient and sufficiently prolonged,” and, in such a state, “the members of the group will effectively brainwash one another” (Marcus, 1974, p. 26). A heavily propagandised society subjected to induced stress can, therefore, be left to police itself, with the indoctrinated majority keeping the minority of free thinkers in check by attacking their views as “unpatriotic,” “fringe,” “conspiracy theory,” “crazy,” “dangerous,” “extremist,” etc.

Particularly interesting is Festinger’s (1957, 262) claim that “Identical dissonance in a large number of people may be created when an event occurs which is so compelling as to produce a uniform reaction in everyone. For example, an event may occur which unequivocally invalidates some widely held belief.” Prior to “9/11,” the widely held belief was that the United States, as the “sole superpower” in a world free from “great power” conflict, was immune to attack. After that event, the uniform reaction was support for the United States’ “War on Terror,” and anyone who dared question either the event or its consequences was a “conspiracy theorist.” The lesson is that traumatising events can be used to manufacture cognitive dissonance on a mass scale. “Information learned in the context of trauma,” Kyrie and Broudy (2022b) observe, drawing on Howie & Ressler’s (2021) insights into the “neurobiology of fear learning,” becomes “neurologically hardwired, and resistant to change, including from subsequent factual, logical disconfirmation and evidence.”

No Longer Open to Argument

In a totalitarian society, once a fearful citizen has “accepted the ‘logic’ of [their] leaders,” they are “no longer open to discussion or argument” (Meerloo, 1956, pp. 136–7). Similarly, Arendt (1962, p. 308) writes of totalitarianism that “within the organizational framework of the movement, so long as it holds together, the fanaticized members can be reached by neither experience nor argument.”

The inability to deal with evidence-based counter-arguments has been a defining feature/weakness of “Covid-19” true believers. As Hopkins (2021b) observes, “You can show [them] the facts all you like”—e.g. around fake reports of people dropping dead in the streets in March 2020, hyperbolic projected death rates, the PCR test scam, studies on mask ineffectiveness, manipulated death statistics, hospital propaganda, the survival rates for people under 70, the unnecessary risk of injecting children, etc.—yet “none of this will make the slightest difference.” In the “Covid-19” context, Harradine (2020) observes, “People react to discrediting evidence not by acknowledging reality but by entrenching their beliefs even further.” They will not listen to reason. Or perhaps they will listen politely, and then continue as though the conversation never happened.

For many victims of psychological operations, the gulf between what they have been indoctrinated to believe and the dark nature of sociopolitical reality (the power of evil) is too much to bear. For example, realising that the events of “9/11” were not what the public was indoctrinated to believe can generate a profound sense of ontological insecurity, at least to begin with (Hughes, 2020, p. 73). Or take the inhumane logic of Big Pharma, which generates profit by keeping people sick (Gøtzsche, 2013). Big Pharma has repeatedly incurred gigantic fines for experimenting upon, injuring, and killing people with its products, which it accepts as the cost of doing business. Yet, before the horror show of the “Covid-19 vaccines,” most people blindly believed the mantra that vaccines are “safe and effective.” Tragically, many still do, and for them, challenging their indoctrination could “shatter their fragile delusions, leaving them lost and bewildered in a frightening world they cannot face” (Davis, 2019).

Bertrand Russell once wrote that “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd” (2009, p. 106). For members of totalitarian societies and cults, “nothing is more threatening […] “than those who challenge their fundamental beliefs, confront them with facts, or otherwise demonstrate that their ‘reality’ isn’t reality at all, but, rather, a delusional, paranoid fiction” (Hopkins, 2021a). Particularly when the facts threaten to expose deep state criminality and the psychological operations that provide cover for it, “the more deep the criticism, the more visceral the reaction” (de Lint, 2021, pp. 221–22).

Anyone tactfully asking evidence-based questions about “Covid-19 countermeasures” risked incurring a visceral (over)reaction from traumatised victims of the “Covid-19” operation. As Cullen observes, “what happens is they get angry! And it’s from 0 to 60,” i.e. perfectly calm one moment, furious the next (Anthony & Cullen, 2021). “It’s almost as if the propaganda in their mind, the virus of their mind, so to speak […] has [a] security system in place, which puts up a wall,” Cullen adds. Scott (2021a) observes the “mask rage, vaccine rage, social distancing rage—when violations/non-compliance/refusal of these occurs.” McDonald (2022, p. 21) references “countless videos […] showing angry, hysterical [people] screaming at others for not wearing a mask, often chasing them and even physically attacking them.” In March 2021, when comedian Alex Lasarev sarcastically used a megaphone to congratulate pedestrians for “following the narrative and trusting the news and not questioning anything,” a triggered cyclist used his bicycle to smash in Lasarev’s car window at a junction (Macmichael, 2021).

A striking manifestation of cognitive dissonance among “vaccinated” people was the tendency to respond to getting “Covid-19” (in their view) by insisting how much worse it would have been had they not taken the injections and continuing to urge everyone else to take them. The illogical mindset here is that the “vaccines” are protecting them against the very thing (“Covid-19”) that is making them ill. There is no criticising the “vaccines” for their obvious ineffectiveness in preventing infection, no thought to inquire into the frequency of “breakthrough cases” in case there is a pattern, and no consideration of what proportion of “unvaccinated” people remain uninfected and healthy. Tragically, some “vaccine”-injured individuals continued to defend and advocate for the very injections that, by their own admission, had caused harm to them and their loved ones.

Societal Implications

Behavioural psychology teaches that the more someone has invested into something (time, money, effort, personal identity), the harder it becomes to admit they were wrong and to change course (the sunk cost fallacy). This is associated with the idea of loss aversion, i.e. that “we dislike losses more than we like gains of an equivalent amount” (Dolan et al., 2010, p. 20). Consider, then, how many sunk costs there are for those who bought into the official “Covid-19” narrative; who were tricked into publicly virtue-signalling their loyalty to a raft of deeply sinister agendas; who sought to marginalise, ostracise, and otherwise persecute those seeking to defend freedom (including for them); and who surrendered their bodily autonomy to the point of making themselves (and their children) test subjects for unlicensed, experimental injections with no adequate safety data. Given such a high level of buy-in, there are powerful psychological reasons why large numbers of people may not be willing to admit the error of their ways.

This has left society fractured. There are those whose worldviews are fundamentally determined by whatever the government and the media tell them—and those who, for whatever reason, see through the calculated attempts at manipulating public perception by whatever means possible to serve ruling-class agendas. It comes as a heavy burden to those in the latter camp to realise that rational communication is barely possible with those whose unconscious mind has been so thoroughly manipulated and abused that they would rather attack those standing up for truth, freedom, justice, and love than engage in any kind of evidence-based discussion around issues that challenge their programming.

Such fractures run deep and have criss-crossed family relationships, friendships, and even intimate relationships. Consequently, the key questions about what is really going on in the world risk becoming taboo: the indoctrinated refuse to ask them (and may turn on those who do), while those whose critical facilities have remained intact through the psychological operation often do not wish to jeopardise close relationships by asking those questions.

The implications of this psychological schism in society are profound. A year before “Covid-19,” Davis (2019) wrote:

On the back of their ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to even look at the mountain of evidence that justifies some scepticism, it appears the rest of us may very well face compulsory injection at the hands of ruthless multinational corporations based upon research partly funded by the military industrial complex.

This is an accurate, and powerful, assessment of the situation. For as long as enough people can be kept in a mind-controlled stupor, blindly believing the propaganda that “vaccines” are “safe and effective,” they contribute to a situation in which anything, regardless of the contents (Hughes, 2022c), could be injected into our bodies, without our informed consent—and, for most people, has been already.

Total Deception

It is dawning on more and more people that The Science™ which they were told to follow was fraudulent. Bell (2022), for instance, provides a “short list of Really Big Lies,” including:

• Banning students from school for a year protects the elderly;

• Cloth and surgical masks stop aerosolised virus transmission;

• Post-infection immunity to respiratory viruses is expected to be poor and short-lived, while vaccines to a single viral protein will somehow produce much stronger immunity;

• Immunity to viruses is best measured by antibody concentrations rather than T-cell response or clinical outcomes;

• It is appropriate to give a new gene-based pharmaceutical class in pregnancy that crosses the placenta without any pregnancy trial data, toxicology studies, or long-term outcomes data (in anyone) [in England, perinatal mortality rates “increased across the UK in 2021 after 7 years of year-on-year reduction” (Draper et al., 2023)];

• It is appropriate to inject children with drugs lacking long-term safety data in order to protect the elderly;

• Pandemics are becoming more frequent and more deadly, despite the historical record, and the progress of modern medicine, indicating quite the opposite.

Referring to the “industrial-scale fraud” perpetrated by Big Pharma and state-aligned media, as well as by governments against their own citizens, Chuter (2021) alleges a psychological warfare operation “built on a litany of these Big Lies, one of which is that universal vaccination is our only way out of the pandemic.”

Seemingly everything the public was told to believe in the name of following The Science™ has turned out to be false. Knightly (2023) provides a crib sheet of 40 facts debunking some of the main lies regarding death counts, testing, “lockdowns,” “vaccines,” etc. Hudson (2021) debunks 20 lies on which The Science™ is premised. Atlas (2023) lists the “10 biggest falsehoods—known for years to be false, not recently learned or proven to be so—promoted by America's public health leaders, elected and unelected officials, and now-discredited academics.” In Blaylock’s (2022) opinion, the public was fed an “unending series of lies, distortions and disinformation by the media, the public health officials, medical bureaucracies (CDC, FDA and WHO) and medical associations.”

In terms of the “Covid-19” operation, we are dealing, not merely with errors in The Science™, but, rather, with Big Lies in the totalitarian sense. Ultimately, unless scientists have more to show, particularly in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that “SARS-CoV-2” exists, then it is reasonable to deduce, as Devlin (2021, p. 2) does, that “every single aspect of the official narrative beaten into the consciousness of the public has been laden with fraud.” There was no “pandemic,” there was no “virus,” and there were no “vaccines.” Instead, there was a highly advanced psychological operation initiating the war for technocracy.