offguardian--2020-09-08--COVID19 Scamdemic – Part 2

COVID19 Scamdemic – Part 2

DISCLAIMER : I am not medically qualified and this article is in no way intended as medical advice .
If you feel ill you should seek a professional medical opinion .
In Part 1 we defined the UK State and looked at the driving forces behind its lockdown response to the World Health Organisation ’ s ( WHO ’ s ) declared COVID 19 “ global ” pandemic .
Please read Part 1 first to appreciate the context of this article .
It appears that COVID 19 has been exploited to bring about a new global economic , social , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Reset , this affords a technocratic parasite class , often wrongly referred to as the elite , centralised global control of all resources , including all human resources .
Though influential , the UK State is just one national component of this global agenda .
In order to prepare us for global technocracy , which will be a dictatorship , we need to become more accustomed to obeying orders without question .
Consequently the Lockdown response has been characterised by conflicting , ever shifting advice , both to condition people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to better facilitate behaviour change .
We will cover a lot of ground in this article and I should warn you , it does not make comfortable reading .
But please , if you have the time , grab yourself a coffee and we ’ ll discuss these important issues .
Population wide behaviour change techniques were promoted in the UK Cabinet Office ’ s 2010 document Mindspace : Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy .
Behaviour change ( modification ) has been widely adopted by the UK State as a means of controlling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent “ nudge unit ” that the UK State later privatised it , forming the Behavioural Insights Team .
This enabled them to make a profit by selling their behaviour change expertise to other States , similarly seeking to control their own people .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , the lead authors of the seminal MINDSPACE document included representatives from Imperial College , whose wildly inaccurate COVID 19 computer models underpinned lockdown policies , on both sides of the Atlantic , and the Rand corporation , a US military industrialist complex think tank who former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leading think-tank for Pentagon.
” The MINDSPACE authors state : In response to the novel coronavirus , the UK State has defined our choice environment .
It is the environment that best suits its policy objectives .
One created by exploiting the COVID 19 pandemic in order to prepare all of us for the Great Reset .
This behavioural change approach avoids the need to make convincing arguments with facts and information .
This could risk potential challenge .
Evidence-based debate is not welcome , and not part of behaviour change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inducing propaganda , censor any dissent , and frame public opinion within an altered context .
Thus moving the people away from being autonomous individuals , who make rational decisions , towards situated decision makers controlled by their choice environment .
With the real risks of COVID 19 well known , on March 19th 2020 , just over a week after the WHO ’ s declaration of a global pandemic , both Public Health England ( PHE ) and the UK government Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens ( ACDP ) agreed that COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease ( HCID . )
They downgraded it due to low overall mortality rates .
The UK State knew that COVID 19 was unlikely to kill sufficient numbers to justify the massive re-engineering of society and economic destruction required to bring about the Great Reset .
Therefore , it resorted to coercion , statistical manipulation and propaganda to convince the people be terrified of the relatively low level COVID 19 risks .
With the support of the ever obedient mainstream media ( MSM , ) who have been directly funded by the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State turned to its behavioural change experts .
They included the Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour ( SPI-B for short . )
Spi-B ’ s role , during the crisis , has been to advise the State how to use behavioural change techniques to convince the people to obey its orders without question .
Three days after COVID 19 was downgraded from an HCID , Spi-B recommended the following ( Bracketed information added ) : • Use the media ( MSM ) to increase sense of personal threat .
• Use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of responsibility to others .
• Consider use of social disapproval ( via the MSM ) for failure to comply .
A free and independent media could not be “ used ” in this fashion to scare people without cause .
Only a controlled MSM propaganda machine can possibly achieve this .
The convincing myth that the western MSM is a free and independent media is one of the greatest propaganda coups in history .
Spi-B don ’ t believe that anyone who disagrees , and subsequently refuses to comply , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies , has any legitimate concerns .
Rather they call them complacent .
To ensure that resulting non compliance doesn ’ t take hold , those who do stand against the tyranny of the common interest , are to be marginalised by subjecting them to the social disapproval of the terrified majority .
Spi-B recommended : Thanks to the behaviour change efforts of the UK State and its MSM , if you scrutinise the official COVID 19 statistics , social disapproval , alleging that you don ’ t care about people dying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsense , but effective .
Not because it stops criticism , but because it frames the objections as the acts of callous monsters .
Hence , the MSM ’ s reliance upon hard-hitting emotional messaging .
Early in the crisis , an example of the hard hitting emotional message came in the form of MSM stories about NHS staff who had all supposedly died from COVID 19 .
In any rational society it would go without saying that , of course , these people ’ s deaths were a tragedy .
Analysis from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with millions of employees , NHS staff were statistically less likely to die from COVID 19 than the general public .
While the MSM didn ’ t report these findings , it was left , as usual , to the so called alternative media to question power , and reveal the deceptive use of the statistics to as many people as they could .
Using snappy slogans , the UK State encouraged the nation to “ clap for the NHS.
” In combination with the hard-hitting emotional messages , this was part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment .
For a wider public of situated decision makers , this further strengthened social disapproval of anyone who questioned Lockdown health policies .
To point out that the health impacts of the Lockdown would be significantly worse than COVID 19 was to question the NHS .
An act of heresy .
This strategy was essential for the UK State because the COVID 19 statistics do not support its own fearful narrative .
Even if you accept the official accounts , should you contract COVID 19 in the UK , the chances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – 0.4 % .
If you are infected , you have at least a 99.6 % chance of survival .
This almost certainly explains why the UK State decided not to report recovery rates .
The rationale given for this was that the “ modelling used to calculate it was complex.
” However , to date , despite promising to publish this statistic , the UK State still doesn ’ t report recovery rates .
It seems counting people diagnosed with COVID 19 , who don ’ t die , is too complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subtraction , most people are willing to accept all the other UK State COVID 19 statistics that the MSM report to them ad nauseam .
Claimed UK deaths from COVID 19 are nominally 41,486 ( at the time of writing ) This means , according to UK State statistics , the global pandemic has allegedly led to the deaths of 0.06 % of the UK population with the median age of death being 82 in England and Wales .
Like nearly every other mortality risk , the chances of dying from COVID 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is practically indistinguishable from standard population risk .
Bluntly , the belief that COVID 19 presents some sort of dire , plague like threat is irrational and based upon nothing but persistent fear porn .
Initially , the UK MSM widely reported that COVID 19 could kill more than half a million British people .
On the 12th March the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a press conference in which he warned of significant loss of life .
Preceded by the UK Government ’ s Chief Scientific Adviser , Sir Patrick Vallance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than half a million people could die , Boris Johnson told the British public : This terrifying statement was not based upon the WHO ’ s declaration of a pandemic .
The WHO has nothing to say about mortality , only the worldwide spread of a disease .
Johnson ’ s statement was not based upon the available data either .
It was founded entirely upon computer modelled predictions of Imperial College ’ s COVID 19 Response Team .
So far in 2020 , the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ( BMFG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 86 million .
As is the norm with the Imperial College ’ s modelled pandemic predictions , they were hopelessly inaccurate .
On every occasion they have grossly overestimated mortality and have never erred by way of underestimation .
Always for the financial gain of pharmaceutical corporations .
Imperial College ’ s lunatic COVID 19 predictions were questioned by the wider scientific community at the time .
Nobel laureate biophysicist Michael Levitt immediately highlighted the problems with their models ; Professor of global public health Devi Sridhar pointed out that Imperial had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ microbiologist Dr Sucharit Bhakdi , questioning the predictions , called the global state Lockdown response “ grotesque ” and warned that it would be far more dangerous than COVID 19 .
Scientists from around the world raised their concerns .
They repeatedly warned that the science underpinning the alarm was weak .
However , their voices were largely censored as the UK MSM advanced the UK State narrative without question .
Perhaps , in part , because they were paid to do so by the UK State .
Imperial College ’ s pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dross .
To imagine that no one within the UK State knew this , prior to cherry picking their report as claimed justification for their subsequent lockdown , is ridiculous .
Whether written for the purpose , or seized upon to fit the purpose , it seems Imperial College ’ s fantasy predictions were selected solely to promote Lockdown policies .
With tight control of the MSM narrative , the UK State simply ignored the real science and trotted out its meaningless “ led by the science ” propaganda soundbite .
A simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s altered context within their choice environment .
It is not credible for Professor Mark Woolhouse , a member of Spi-B , to now state that the Lockdown was a monumental mistake .
Practically the only body of scientific opinion which believed Imperial College was the one firmly attached to the UK State , including Spi-B , who were equally committed to nonsensical Lockdown policies .
The UK State had to disregard the weight of global scientific opinion , deliberately choose the fictitious computer models and actively deceive the public , falsely claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science.
” It was no mistake .
Due to the lack of an unprecedented threat , it appears the UK State has instead fixed the statistics , maximised case numbers and mortality figures , fed its statistical rubbish into its MSM propaganda machine and then exploited the resultant fear , of a fake unprecedented threat , to achieve its desired behaviour change .
This necessitated a continually shifting narrative , both to compensate for encroaching reality and to keep the population constantly confused and psychologically open to suggestion as a result .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responses to the pandemic was to create a new , entirely unnecessary , death registration process .
One so opaque and prone to manipulation and error , it practically guaranteed the meaningless statistics we have been given .
In late March , before the recorded peak in mortality during the second week of April , the UK State instructed the Office of National Statistics ( ONS ) to record all “ mentions ” of COVID 19 on death certificates as proof of death from COVID 19 .
The new death registration system meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the decedent either testing positive or receiving any examination by a qualified doctor , either prior to death or postmortem .
The UK State split its testing regime into “ pillars.
” Pillar 1 focused upon swab testing ( RT-PCR ) the most vulnerable , the seriously ill and front line key-workers in state healthcare settings .
Pillar 2 expanded the testing to include essential workers in the social care and other sectors .
However , RT-PCR , used in Pillars 1 and 2 , is incapable of identifying a virus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The UK State ’ s Pillar 3 relies upon antibody testing .
So far , this has been a complete disaster , characterised mainly by expensive outlay on tests that don ’ t work which , if they did , wouldn ’ t reveal anything useful anyway .
The Royal College of Pathologists ( RCP ) petitioned the UK government , raising numerous concerns .
Firstly they highlighted that current antibody tests were clinically incapable of indicating either the level of infection ( asymptomatic rates ) or any possible acquired immunity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any data , to assure the quality of these non-evidence based tests which consequently provided no value to health professionals trying to treat patients .
The RCP concluded that their only perceivable use was for very broad research purposes .
These findings were backed up by the prestigious Cochrane Review , who stated : Pillar 4 ( surveillance testing ) takes tests from Pillars 1 – 3 , whether saliva swabs of antibody blood tests , which the UK State then claims it uses to learn more about the prevalence and spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flawed RT-PCR and antibody tests producing anything cogent appears negligible .
What is more certain is that there are multinational corporations with a firm grasp of the UK State ’ s testing procedures and subsequent data analysis .
Even if someone tests positive , anywhere up to 80 % of these people are asymptomatic .
Meaning they do not have COVID 19 , the syndrome that may , in as little as 20 % of cases , result from an infection with SARS-CoV-2 .
Reporting a so called spike in “ cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large number of the positive RT-PCR tests will be wrong , up to 80 % of those who test positive won ’ t develop COVID 19 and , of those that do , 99.6 % will survive , of which more than 80 % will experience COVID 19 as little more than a cold .
The actual threat from a claimed “ spike in cases ” is diminutive .
The eternal MSM alarmism , reporting terrifying case numbers and highly speculative causes of death , is pure propaganda .
It was Pillar 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations further , significant influence over policy and the physical response .
The collected swabs are analysed at the UK Lighthouse Labs .
The data and resources are provided by the vaccine producing , pharmaceutical giants Astrazeneca and GlaxoSmithKline ( GSK ) .
Creating an enormous conflict of financial interest within the Pillar testing program .
From the outset Pillar 2 data collection was plagued with problems .
For example , multiple tests from one individual were counted as separate positive cases and tests were prematurely counted as complete , before the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was so poor , the UK State simply wiped off 30,302 reported cases due to methodological errors and were forced to suspend all reporting of Pillar 2 test results in late May .
Throughout the crisis , Public Health England , an agency of the UK government Department of Health , received notification of every death .
They then cross-referenced the test data , much of it from Lighthouse Labs , to check if the deceased had ever tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 .
Up to 80 % of whom could have been completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the decedent died from , whether it was cancer or a road accident , and irrespective of when the positive test was taken , possibly many months prior to death , PHE recorded it as a COVID 19 death .
Only after this practice was discovered did PHE change their methodology , removing 5,377 deaths from the official mortality figures overnight .
The Great Reset aims to centralise all power and authority .
Therefore , in response to the supposedly deplorable performance of its own government department ( PHE ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further centralise its power and authority .
It created the new Joint Biosecurity Centre ( JBC ) which will initially be led by Dr Clare Gardiner , a former GCHQ operative and former director of the National Cyber Security Centre .
The JBC will issue the biosecurity alerts that will control our daily lives .
By amalgamating PHE with NHS Test and Trace and the JBC , the UK State has removed the notion of public health and replaced it with biosecurity .
In the future biosecurity UK State it is difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID 19 .
The JBC definition ranges from “ confirmed ” , to include asymptomatic cases , “ linked cases ” , people who may or may not have the COVID 19 but may have once met someone who tested positive , “ probable ” , someone in a Lockdown area with possible symptoms and “ possible ” , someone who may have symptoms .
Only the “ discarded , ” people who haven ’ t been tracked and traced , who don ’ t live in Lockdown areas and haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
they don ’ t have a cold , ) will be free from the clutches of the JBC .
But only after they have passed their surveillance checks to be discarded .
As the reported mortality rate declined sharply , in late April , the UK State instructed the Care Quality Commission ( CQC ) to report “ suspected ” COVID 19 care home deaths to the ONS .
Adding thousands to the COVID 19 mortality figures in an instant .
From this point forward , COVID 19 didn ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home resident ’ s death certificate for them to be added to the ONS ’ mortality count .
The MSM then reported the COVID 19 horror to a terrified public , without any scrutiny or hesitation .
There are no sound reasons to believe any of the UK State ’ s official COVID 19 statistics .
From the registration of deaths , through testing to data collection , analysis and reporting , the whole system is either a complete shambles , irretrievably corrupt or a combination of the two .
No one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real COVID 19 mortality statistics or case numbers are .
Sadly , all we can do is count the dead .
Which raises a gut churning possibility .
From all cause mortality , we can estimate something approaching of the true COVID 19 mortality figure .
Research by the Italian Ministry of Health found that around 12 % of recorded COVID 19 deaths in Italy could be accurately desscribed as such .
Similarly , researchers at the US Centre for Disease Control ( CDC ) found that around 6 % of COVID 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease .
All globalist States , such as Italy , the U.S. and the UK , have slightly different death registration and statistical processes .
In addition , for a number of decedents , while their primary cause of death was their pre-existing comorbidity , COVID 19 probably did hasten their deaths .
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the UK State , an estimate of 30 % , for genuine COVID 19 deaths , can reasonably be applied to the reported mortality statistics .
Suggesting that the true figure is closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places the real public health risk of COVID 19 well below recent seasonal influenza .
In England , in 2014-2015 , PHE estimates attributed more than 34,000 deaths to influenza in the first 15 weeks of the year , and in 2015-2017 more than 17,000 .
COVID 19 is not , and never was , at any stage , more dangerous than the flu .
People only believe it is , and that belief is based upon little more than statistical drivel and MSM scaremongering .
Nonetheless , there has been a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which does not conform to the usual , seasonal patterns .
One that corresponds precisely with the UK State ’ s Lockdown policies to bring about the conditions for the Great Reset .
The disquieting reality appears to be that these are Lockdown deaths , not COVID 19 deaths .
It seems at least 29,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society have died before their time .
I have very recently lost my father and , while most of the lives lost , falsely attributed to COVID 19 , may only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I speak from acute sorrow in the certainty that every moment with a loved one is precious beyond measure .
Initially the State said the purpose of it ’ s Lockdowm measures were to flatten the curve .
The claim being this would stop the NHS being overrun from the projected surge of cases .
However , this story was only deployed before the statistical shenanigans began in earnest .
As the reported number of deaths hit the headlines “ flatten the curve ” was discarded .
The anticipated surge never happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based upon were junk .
There were some notable COVID 19 hotspots , but nationally the NHS was effectively closed to virtually every condition but COVID 19 .
The much publicised Nightingale hospitals were nothing but expensive white elephants and , at the height of the global pandemic , the NHS was practically deserted in the UK .
However , the “ flatten the curve ” fable was sufficient for the UK State to shutdown the productive economy and propel the country into a totally needless state of panic .
After “ flatten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firmly drawn towards deaths , rather than the unreported survival rates .
These were delivered with the flashing lights of alarming mainstream media ( MSM ) headlines , as the meaningless figures were made accessible through daily COVID 19 “ emergency ” updates .
A steady supply of simple snappy slogans ( stay home , protect the NHS , save lives etc . )
ensured the situated decision makers remained firmly entrenched within the altered context of their choice environment .
There was never any public health rationale for the UK State ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus to rapid extinction in the summer sun , the UK State instead ordered people to stay in their own homes where community infections were at their worse .
In 2019 , this was well known to the WHO .
The WHO reported that , for viral respiratory infections , quarantining exposed individuals ( quarantining the healthy – by placing families under house arrest ) , was “ not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure ; ” The isolation of sick individuals should only be done for limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals who need to seek medical attention ; ” workplace closures should only be considered in , “ extraordinarily severe pandemics ; ” there is “ no obvious rationale ” for contact tracing and wearing face masks was not recommended because , “ there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission.
” The UK State ’ s Lockdown policy was the complete antithesis of the WHO ’ s own , previously recommended , procedure for managing a viral respiratory pandemic .
Quarantining the healthy and then re-orientating health care services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , something which never made any sense .
At least , not if saving lives was the priority .
A recent study by the Queen ’ s Nursing Institute found the following practices , commonly operating in Care Homes , at the height of the Lockdown pandemic : These life-threatening practices were a direct result of official guidance , issued by registration bodies and health services , in response to the UK State ’ s Lockdown policies .
The NHS issued guidance stating care home residents should not be conveyed to hospital ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID 19 positive patients into care homes ; GP ’ s were advised not to visit care settings , with consultation conducted without examination via video calls ; ambulance response times increased dramatically , practically removing vital emergency care the most vulnerable ; essential PPE for care home staff wasn ’ t supplied , further reducing their capacity to care for those most at risk ; testing for COVID 19 wasn ’ t extended to care settings , leaving care staff confused and uncertain of the risk , with furlough further reducing staffing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents having “ do not attempt resuscitation ” ( DNAR ) notices attached to their care plans , without their knowledge or consent , and this practice seemingly extended to other vulnerable adults , such as those with learning difficulties .
There is little to no evidence that children are either at risk from COVID 19 or spread SARS-CoV-2 to adults .
However there is evidence that children are dying as a result of UK State Lockdown policies .
Yet still the MSM persist with their dangerous fake news the COVID 19 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives mean nothing in the pursuit of the Great Reset .
By mid June the UK COVID 19 mortality risk was negligible and the so called pandemic was effectively over .
There has been no significant excess mortality in England & Wales for more than 13 weeks .
Since mid June deaths in care settings have been at or below normal levels and COVID 19 has accounted for less illness and death than combined influenza and pneumonia .
Therefore , the MSM propaganda has shifted towards cases and the distraction of face masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing masks will protect us from the SARS-CoV-2 respiratory virus .
However , they clearly have no effect against influenza .
For months , the UK State consistently told the public that face masks were entirely unnecessary .
After years of gold standard science , demonstrating no viral benefit to wearing face masks , suddenly they became mandatory .
This was a purely political decision and certainly wasn ’ t led by any science .
The WHO did not recommend face masks but were then pressurised by national governments to change their advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inform this decision , the WHO hastily cobbled together some meta-analysis , which somehow missed every single randomised control trial showing how ineffective masks are , in order to falsely claim the science had recently changed .
Like virtually every other aspect of the supposed COVID 19 pandemic , the only scientific basis for this policy is behavioural science .
The face mask ruse is being used to distract the public from the fact that there is now no justification for any restrictions .
No matter what the UK State claims the alert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move people away from making rational decisions to become ‘ situated ’ decision-makers .
This enables the choice environment to be shifted towards the dreaded altered context of the “ second wave.
” The UK State is not unique .
It is just one of a number of globalist States that have colluded to foist the COVID 19 scamdemic upon the world .
The Great Reset is a centrally devised and controlled global objective for all partners States .
To say that COVID 19 is a scamdemic is not to allege that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has caused terrible , but far from unprecedented , loss of life and every death leaves a gaping hole that can never be repaired .
Our only hope is that we learn to live with pain .
In the effort to create the social , economic and political conditions for the Great Reset the UK State is among those who have condemned people to die alone , torn from their loved ones .
The sickening truth of the scamdemic is that these heartbreaking losses have been exploited to control the living .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit of a despicable , uncaring parasite class .
They have global control only because we allow it and the vast majority passively give consent without even knowing it .
Constantly directed as situated decision makers , fed nothing but propaganda to ensure their automatic behaviour .
We won ’ t rid ourselves of the malevolent rule of the parasite class by using a party political system built to protect them , and advance their interests .
Other peaceful solutions exist and we must pursue them or suffer this malignancy forever .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people die isolated and afraid , nor that entire populations live in gratuitous fear .
The Great Reset offers them the promise of the New World Order technocracy and the vaccine controlled , global biosecurity State .
They simply don ’ t care who becomes collateral damage along the way .
It seems that we have all been set up for the second wave , hard wired into the scamdemic from the start .
The final push to permanently frame the choice environment .
Analysis shows that the phrase “ second wave ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downgraded COVID 19 , due to low mortality rates .
The trend spiked significantly as mortality declined below all cause averages and again when it approached statistical zero .
The UK State ’ s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ( SAGE ) recently leaked a report to the MSM claiming that 85,000 people could die from COVID 19 in the UK this winter .
This followed the claims of former GlaxoSmithKline R & D President and current Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK State , Sir Patrick Vallance , who claimed 120,000 would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID 19 reaches the Herd Immunity Threshold ( HIT ) at around 20 % of the population , or even less .
At this stage , it appears the virus has burned out and is incapable of infecting or making more people sick , save for the tiny minority with severely compromised immune systems .
The UK has long passed this threshold .
Further evidence shows that a sizeable proportion of human beings , possibly up to 60 % , already carry T-Cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from previous coronavirus and SARS infections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any significant risk .
There is no apparent need for a vaccine and , despite the clear suppression of treatments that could have potentially saved thousands , the fact that cases continue to rise , while hospital admission and deaths are virtually nothing , demonstrates that the COVID 19 pandemic is finished .
The only thing the UK State ’ s testing programs are allegedly finding are residual infections that present virtually no risk to anybody .
The increase in “ cases ” is directly proportional to the increasing number of tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State planners and propagandist pedlars of the scamdemic .
Their hard-hitting emotional messaging is divorced from informing the public .
A significant proportion of the MSM has been co-opted to serve nothing and no one but the parasite class .
Despite the fact that it is now certain that Lockdowns are the worst possible response to COVID 19 , still SAGE “ experts ” argue for further , various Lockdown measures that absolutely don ’ t work .
The only fathomable reason for this is to continue preparations for the Great Reset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collectively , scientifically illiterate .
A recent study by health-tech contractors Medefer estimated that the Lockdown response , to the low level threat of COVID 19 , has left more than 15 million people waiting for vital health care .
While this report should be treated with some caution , as Medefer are one of many private companies hoping to swoop in and profit from the Lockdown accelerated destruction of the NHS , it is beyond doubt that millions of people will suffer irreparable health damage from the Lockdown .
Mental health charities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lockdown ’ s devastating impact .
The political response to this has been to argue about the definition of waiting lists .
This is because the political class are the otiose puppets of the parasite class and , as such , they don ’ t provide any public benefit at all .
In every sense , they are just the expensive illusion of democracy .
Homelessness has reached 320,000 in the UK and freedom of information requests reveal that , in England alone , nearly 20,000 household have been made technically homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Part 1 the economic destruction delivered by the lockdown is unprecedented .
The link between poverty and a wide range of health inequalities is beyond dispute .
With its Lockdown , the UK State has created a health crisis that will make current Lockdown and COVID 19 deaths seem like a minor , public health hiccup .
Given what appears to be the appalling statistical deception and rancid propaganda that the UK State has relied upon thus far , it is easy to see how the second wave deception could emerge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ disorienting death registration process in place , and a population of immune suppressed , mask wearing , recently released detainees facing the usual seasonal flu and pneumonia risks , the UK State , and its supplicant MSM , have everything ready to create a psychological operation beyond imagination .
The likely objective will be to consolidate on the work already done , and permanently transform the people from a population of autonomous individuals , capable of rational thought into a herd of situated decision makers whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s existing impact upon treatments for cancer , heart disease , and a range of serious , life threatening conditions , combined with huge waiting lists , struggling health services and the normal excess winter pressures upon the NHS , will be more than enough to create an appalling health crisis .
All slickly blamed upon the second wave of COVID 19 .
I truly hope I am wrong .
However , it is by no means beyond the UK State to do this .
If it again claims people need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it insist we can ’ t be with our loved ones , that we must avoid each other , literally like the plague ; if it labels anyone who disagrees a “ COVID denier ” and starts “ quarantining ” people who don ’ t comply , then you will have a choice to make .
You can be a situated decision makers , or you can be an an autonomous individual , making rational decisions .
It ’ s not hard .
Just stop believing everything you are told , especially from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent research , take a long hard look at the evidence , and decide for yourself if you can give any credence to the claims of the UK State and its global partners .
You can read more of Iain ’ s work at his blog In This Together

Iain Davis
DISCLAIMER: I am not medically qualified and this article is in no way intended as medical advice. If you feel ill you should seek a professional medical opinion.
In Part 1 we defined the UK State and looked at the driving forces behind its lockdown response to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) declared COVID 19 “global” pandemic.
Please read Part 1 first to appreciate the context of this article.
It appears that COVID 19 has been exploited to bring about a new global economic, social, cultural and political paradigm. Encapsulated as the Great Reset, this affords a technocratic parasite class, often wrongly referred to as the elite, centralised global control of all resources, including all human resources.
Though influential, the UK State is just one national component of this global agenda. In order to prepare us for global technocracy, which will be a dictatorship, we need to become more accustomed to obeying orders without question.
Consequently the Lockdown response has been characterised by conflicting, ever shifting advice, both to condition people to arbitrary diktat and psychologically unbalance the public to better facilitate behaviour change.
We will cover a lot of ground in this article and I should warn you, it does not make comfortable reading. But please, if you have the time, grab yourself a coffee and we’ll discuss these important issues.
The UK State & COVID 19 Behaviour Change
Population wide behaviour change techniques were promoted in the UK Cabinet Office’s 2010 document Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy. Behaviour change (modification) has been widely adopted by the UK State as a means of controlling the populace.
So successful was the subsequent “nudge unit” that the UK State later privatised it, forming the Behavioural Insights Team. This enabled them to make a profit by selling their behaviour change expertise to other States, similarly seeking to control their own people.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lead authors of the seminal MINDSPACE document included representatives from Imperial College, whose wildly inaccurate COVID 19 computer models underpinned lockdown policies, on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Rand corporation, a US military industrialist complex think tank who former UK Chancellor Denis Healey described as “the leading think-tank for Pentagon.” The MINDSPACE authors state:
Approaches based on ‘changing contexts’ – the environment within which we make decisions and respond to cues – have the potential to bring about significant changes in behaviour […] Our behaviour is greatly influenced by what our attention is drawn to…..People are more likely to register stimuli that are novel (messages in flashing lights), accessible (items on sale next to checkouts) and simple (a snappy slogan) […] We find losses more salient than gains, we react differently when identical information is framed in terms of one or the other (as a 20% chance of survival or an 80% chance of death) […] This shifts the focus of attention away from facts and information, and towards altering the context within which people act […] Behavioural approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a ‘situated’ decision-maker, much of whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’. This raises the question: who decides on this choice environment?
In response to the novel coronavirus, the UK State has defined our choice environment. It is the environment that best suits its policy objectives. One created by exploiting the COVID 19 pandemic in order to prepare all of us for the Great Reset.
This behavioural change approach avoids the need to make convincing arguments with facts and information. This could risk potential challenge. Evidence-based debate is not welcome, and not part of behaviour change.
Better to target the population with fear inducing propaganda, censor any dissent, and frame public opinion within an altered context. Thus moving the people away from being autonomous individuals, who make rational decisions, towards situated decision makers controlled by their choice environment.
With the real risks of COVID 19 well known, on March 19th 2020, just over a week after the WHO’s declaration of a global pandemic, both Public Health England (PHE) and the UK government Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) agreed that COVID 19 was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID.) They downgraded it due to low overall mortality rates.
The UK State knew that COVID 19 was unlikely to kill sufficient numbers to justify the massive re-engineering of society and economic destruction required to bring about the Great Reset. Therefore, it resorted to coercion, statistical manipulation and propaganda to convince the people be terrified of the relatively low level COVID 19 risks.
With the support of the ever obedient mainstream media (MSM,) who have been directly funded by the UK government throughout the crisis, the UK State turned to its behavioural change experts. They included the Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B for short.)
Spi-B’s role, during the crisis, has been to advise the State how to use behavioural change techniques to convince the people to obey its orders without question. Three days after COVID 19 was downgraded from an HCID, Spi-B recommended the following (Bracketed information added):
Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of personal threat. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of responsibility to others. Consider use of social disapproval (via the MSM) for failure to comply.
A free and independent media could not be “used” in this fashion to scare people without cause. Only a controlled MSM propaganda machine can possibly achieve this. The convincing myth that the western MSM is a free and independent media is one of the greatest propaganda coups in history.
Spi-B don’t believe that anyone who disagrees, and subsequently refuses to comply, with the UK State’s tranche of Lockdown policies, has any legitimate concerns. Rather they call them complacent.
To ensure that resulting non compliance doesn’t take hold, those who do stand against the tyranny of the common interest, are to be marginalised by subjecting them to the social disapproval of the terrified majority. Spi-B recommended:
Guidance now needs to be reformulated to be behaviourally specific […] The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging […] Messaging needs to emphasise and explain the duty to protect others […] Consideration should be given to use of social disapproval.
Led By Nothing
Thanks to the behaviour change efforts of the UK State and its MSM, if you scrutinise the official COVID 19 statistics, social disapproval, alleging that you don’t care about people dying, is heaped upon you. This is nonsense, but effective. Not because it stops criticism, but because it frames the objections as the acts of callous monsters. Hence, the MSM’s reliance upon hard-hitting emotional messaging.
Early in the crisis, an example of the hard hitting emotional message came in the form of MSM stories about NHS staff who had all supposedly died from COVID 19. In any rational society it would go without saying that, of course, these people’s deaths were a tragedy.
Analysis from the Health Service Journal showed that, with millions of employees, NHS staff were statistically less likely to die from COVID 19 than the general public. While the MSM didn’t report these findings, it was left, as usual, to the so called alternative media to question power, and reveal the deceptive use of the statistics to as many people as they could.
Using snappy slogans, the UK State encouraged the nation to “clap for the NHS.” In combination with the hard-hitting emotional messages, this was part of the process of creating the controlled choice environment.
For a wider public of situated decision makers, this further strengthened social disapproval of anyone who questioned Lockdown health policies. To point out that the health impacts of the Lockdown would be significantly worse than COVID 19 was to question the NHS. An act of heresy.
This strategy was essential for the UK State because the COVID 19 statistics do not support its own fearful narrative. Even if you accept the official accounts, should you contract COVID 19 in the UK, the chances of it leading to death are between 0.3 – 0.4%. If you are infected, you have at least a 99.6% chance of survival.
This almost certainly explains why the UK State decided not to report recovery rates. The rationale given for this was that the “modelling used to calculate it was complex.”
However, to date, despite promising to publish this statistic, the UK State still doesn’t report recovery rates. It seems counting people diagnosed with COVID 19, who don’t die, is too complex. While it is incapable of simple subtraction, most people are willing to accept all the other UK State COVID 19 statistics that the MSM report to them ad nauseam.
Claimed UK deaths from COVID 19 are nominally 41,486 (at the time of writing) This means, according to UK State statistics, the global pandemic has allegedly led to the deaths of 0.06% of the UK population with the median age of death being 82 in England and Wales.
Like nearly every other mortality risk, the chances of dying from COVID 19 increase significantly with age. Mortality distribution is practically indistinguishable from standard population risk. Bluntly, the belief that COVID 19 presents some sort of dire, plague like threat is irrational and based upon nothing but persistent fear porn.
Initially, the UK MSM widely reported that COVID 19 could kill more than half a million British people. On the 12th March the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a press conference in which he warned of significant loss of life. Preceded by the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who repeated the preposterous suggestion that more than half a million people could die, Boris Johnson told the British public:
It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.”
This terrifying statement was not based upon the WHO’s declaration of a pandemic. The WHO has nothing to say about mortality, only the worldwide spread of a disease. Johnson’s statement was not based upon the available data either.
It was founded entirely upon computer modelled predictions of Imperial College’s COVID 19 Response Team.
So far in 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMFG) have given Imperial College more than $86 million.
As is the norm with the Imperial College’s modelled pandemic predictions, they were hopelessly inaccurate. On every occasion they have grossly overestimated mortality and have never erred by way of underestimation. Always for the financial gain of pharmaceutical corporations.
Imperial College’s lunatic COVID 19 predictions were questioned by the wider scientific community at the time. Nobel laureate biophysicist Michael Levitt immediately highlighted the problems with their models; Professor of global public health Devi Sridhar pointed out that Imperial had presented nothing more than a hypothesis and microbiologist Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, questioning the predictions, called the global state Lockdown response “grotesque” and warned that it would be far more dangerous than COVID 19.
Scientists from around the world raised their concerns. They repeatedly warned that the science underpinning the alarm was weak.
However, their voices were largely censored as the UK MSM advanced the UK State narrative without question.
Perhaps, in part, because they were paid to do so by the UK State.
Imperial College’s pandemic predictions have consistently delivered nothing but statistical dross. To imagine that no one within the UK State knew this, prior to cherry picking their report as claimed justification for their subsequent lockdown, is ridiculous.
Whether written for the purpose, or seized upon to fit the purpose, it seems Imperial College’s fantasy predictions were selected solely to promote Lockdown policies. With tight control of the MSM narrative, the UK State simply ignored the real science and trotted out its meaningless “led by the science” propaganda soundbite.
A simple, snappy slogan maintaining the public’s altered context within their choice environment.
It is not credible for Professor Mark Woolhouse, a member of Spi-B, to now state that the Lockdown was a monumental mistake.
Practically the only body of scientific opinion which believed Imperial College was the one firmly attached to the UK State, including Spi-B, who were equally committed to nonsensical Lockdown policies.
The UK State had to disregard the weight of global scientific opinion, deliberately choose the fictitious computer models and actively deceive the public, falsely claiming their policy was “led by the science.”
It was no mistake.
Fixing the Numbers
Due to the lack of an unprecedented threat, it appears the UK State has instead fixed the statistics, maximised case numbers and mortality figures, fed its statistical rubbish into its MSM propaganda machine and then exploited the resultant fear, of a fake unprecedented threat, to achieve its desired behaviour change.
This necessitated a continually shifting narrative, both to compensate for encroaching reality and to keep the population constantly confused and psychologically open to suggestion as a result.
One of the UK State’s first responses to the pandemic was to create a new, entirely unnecessary, death registration process. One so opaque and prone to manipulation and error, it practically guaranteed the meaningless statistics we have been given.
In late March, before the recorded peak in mortality during the second week of April, the UK State instructed the Office of National Statistics (ONS) to record all “mentions” of COVID 19 on death certificates as proof of death from COVID 19. The new death registration system meant a COVID 19 death could be recorded without the decedent either testing positive or receiving any examination by a qualified doctor, either prior to death or postmortem.
The UK State split its testing regime into “pillars.” Pillar 1 focused upon swab testing (RT-PCR) the most vulnerable, the seriously ill and front line key-workers in state healthcare settings.
Pillar 2 expanded the testing to include essential workers in the social care and other sectors. However, RT-PCR, used in Pillars 1 and 2, is incapable of identifying a virus and was not designed as a diagnostic test.
The UK State’s Pillar 3 relies upon antibody testing. So far, this has been a complete disaster, characterised mainly by expensive outlay on tests that don’t work which, if they did, wouldn’t reveal anything useful anyway.
The Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) petitioned the UK government, raising numerous concerns. Firstly they highlighted that current antibody tests were clinically incapable of indicating either the level of infection (asymptomatic rates) or any possible acquired immunity.
There were no benchmark tests, nor any data, to assure the quality of these non-evidence based tests which consequently provided no value to health professionals trying to treat patients. The RCP concluded that their only perceivable use was for very broad research purposes. These findings were backed up by the prestigious Cochrane Review, who stated:
We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies […] It is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement.”
Pillar 4 (surveillance testing) takes tests from Pillars 1 – 3, whether saliva swabs of antibody blood tests, which the UK State then claims it uses to learn more about the prevalence and spread of the virus. Though the chances of the flawed RT-PCR and antibody tests producing anything cogent appears negligible.
What is more certain is that there are multinational corporations with a firm grasp of the UK State’s testing procedures and subsequent data analysis.
Even if someone tests positive, anywhere up to 80% of these people are asymptomatic. Meaning they do not have COVID 19, the syndrome that may, in as little as 20% of cases, result from an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Reporting a so called spike in “cases” is a vacuous claim. A large number of the positive RT-PCR tests will be wrong, up to 80% of those who test positive won’t develop COVID 19 and, of those that do, 99.6% will survive, of which more than 80% will experience COVID 19 as little more than a cold.
The actual threat from a claimed “spike in cases” is diminutive. The eternal MSM alarmism, reporting terrifying case numbers and highly speculative causes of death, is pure propaganda.
It was Pillar 2 that established community testing, providing pharmaceutical corporations further, significant influence over policy and the physical response. The collected swabs are analysed at the UK Lighthouse Labs. The data and resources are provided by the vaccine producing, pharmaceutical giants Astrazeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Creating an enormous conflict of financial interest within the Pillar testing program.
From the outset Pillar 2 data collection was plagued with problems. For example, multiple tests from one individual were counted as separate positive cases and tests were prematurely counted as complete, before the results were even available.
Pillar 2 testing was so poor, the UK State simply wiped off 30,302 reported cases due to methodological errors and were forced to suspend all reporting of Pillar 2 test results in late May.
Throughout the crisis, Public Health England, an agency of the UK government Department of Health, received notification of every death. They then cross-referenced the test data, much of it from Lighthouse Labs, to check if the deceased had ever tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Up to 80% of whom could have been completely free of COVID 19.
No matter what the decedent died from, whether it was cancer or a road accident, and irrespective of when the positive test was taken, possibly many months prior to death, PHE recorded it as a COVID 19 death.
Only after this practice was discovered did PHE change their methodology, removing 5,377 deaths from the official mortality figures overnight.
The Great Reset aims to centralise all power and authority. Therefore, in response to the supposedly deplorable performance of its own government department (PHE), the UK State pounced upon this opportunity to further centralise its power and authority.
It created the new Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC) which will initially be led by Dr Clare Gardiner, a former GCHQ operative and former director of the National Cyber Security Centre.
The JBC will issue the biosecurity alerts that will control our daily lives. By amalgamating PHE with NHS Test and Trace and the JBC, the UK State has removed the notion of public health and replaced it with biosecurity.
In the future biosecurity UK State it is difficult to see how anyone won’t have COVID 19. The JBC definition ranges from “confirmed”, to include asymptomatic cases, “linked cases”, people who may or may not have the COVID 19 but may have once met someone who tested positive, “probable”, someone in a Lockdown area with possible symptoms and “possible”, someone who may have symptoms.
Only the “discarded,” people who haven’t been tracked and traced, who don’t live in Lockdown areas and haven’t got any symptoms at all (ie. they don’t have a cold,) will be free from the clutches of the JBC. But only after they have passed their surveillance checks to be discarded.
As the reported mortality rate declined sharply, in late April, the UK State instructed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to report “suspected” COVID 19 care home deaths to the ONS. Adding thousands to the COVID 19 mortality figures in an instant.
From this point forward, COVID 19 didn’t even need to be mentioned on a care home resident’s death certificate for them to be added to the ONS’ mortality count.
The MSM then reported the COVID 19 horror to a terrified public, without any scrutiny or hesitation.
There are no sound reasons to believe any of the UK State’s official COVID 19 statistics. From the registration of deaths, through testing to data collection, analysis and reporting, the whole system is either a complete shambles, irretrievably corrupt or a combination of the two. No one, especially the MSM, know what the real COVID 19 mortality statistics or case numbers are.
Sadly, all we can do is count the dead. Which raises a gut churning possibility.
From all cause mortality, we can estimate something approaching of the true COVID 19 mortality figure. Research by the Italian Ministry of Health found that around 12% of recorded COVID 19 deaths in Italy could be accurately desscribed as such. Similarly, researchers at the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) found that around 6% of COVID 19 reported deaths were unequivocally attributable to the disease.
All globalist States, such as Italy, the U.S. and the UK, have slightly different death registration and statistical processes. In addition, for a number of decedents, while their primary cause of death was their pre-existing comorbidity, COVID 19 probably did hasten their deaths.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the UK State, an estimate of 30%, for genuine COVID 19 deaths, can reasonably be applied to the reported mortality statistics. Suggesting that the true figure is closer to 12,500 rather than 41,500. This places the real public health risk of COVID 19 well below recent seasonal influenza.
In England, in 2014-2015, PHE estimates attributed more than 34,000 deaths to influenza in the first 15 weeks of the year, and in 2015-2017 more than 17,000. COVID 19 is not, and never was, at any stage, more dangerous than the flu. People only believe it is, and that belief is based upon little more than statistical drivel and MSM scaremongering.
Nonetheless, there has been a significant spike in all cause mortality this year which does not conform to the usual, seasonal patterns. One that corresponds precisely with the UK State’s Lockdown policies to bring about the conditions for the Great Reset. The disquieting reality appears to be that these are Lockdown deaths, not COVID 19 deaths.
It seems at least 29,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society have died before their time. I have very recently lost my father and, while most of the lives lost, falsely attributed to COVID 19, may only have been shortened by a few months, I speak from acute sorrow in the certainty that every moment with a loved one is precious beyond measure.
Fixing the Narrative
Initially the State said the purpose of it’s Lockdowm measures were to flatten the curve. The claim being this would stop the NHS being overrun from the projected surge of cases. However, this story was only deployed before the statistical shenanigans began in earnest. As the reported number of deaths hit the headlines “flatten the curve” was discarded.
The anticipated surge never happened because the predictive models it was supposedly based upon were junk. There were some notable COVID 19 hotspots, but nationally the NHS was effectively closed to virtually every condition but COVID 19.
The much publicised Nightingale hospitals were nothing but expensive white elephants and, at the height of the global pandemic, the NHS was practically deserted in the UK. However, the “flatten the curve” fable was sufficient for the UK State to shutdown the productive economy and propel the country into a totally needless state of panic.
After “flatten the curve”, public attention was firmly drawn towards deaths, rather than the unreported survival rates. These were delivered with the flashing lights of alarming mainstream media (MSM) headlines, as the meaningless figures were made accessible through daily COVID 19 “emergency” updates.
A steady supply of simple snappy slogans (stay home, protect the NHS, save lives etc.) ensured the situated decision makers remained firmly entrenched within the altered context of their choice environment.
There was never any public health rationale for the UK State’s Lockdown policies. Rather than exposing the virus to rapid extinction in the summer sun, the UK State instead ordered people to stay in their own homes where community infections were at their worse. In 2019, this was well known to the WHO.
The WHO reported that, for viral respiratory infections, quarantining exposed individuals (quarantining the healthy – by placing families under house arrest), was “not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure;” The isolation of sick individuals should only be done for limited periods and was not recommended for “individuals who need to seek medical attention;” workplace closures should only be considered in, “extraordinarily severe pandemics;” there is “no obvious rationale” for contact tracing and wearing face masks was not recommended because, “there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission.”
The UK State’s Lockdown policy was the complete antithesis of the WHO’s own, previously recommended, procedure for managing a viral respiratory pandemic. Quarantining the healthy and then re-orientating health care services maximised the risk to the most vulnerable, something which never made any sense. At least, not if saving lives was the priority.
A recent study by the Queen’s Nursing Institute found the following practices, commonly operating in Care Homes, at the height of the Lockdown pandemic:
Having to accept patients from hospitals with unknown Covid-19 status, being told about plans not to resuscitate residents without consulting families, residents or care home staff…..21% of respondents said that their home accepted people discharged from hospital who had tested positive for Covid-19…..a substantial number found it difficult to access District Nursing and GP services….25% in total reporting it somewhat difficult or very difficult during March-May 2020.”
These life-threatening practices were a direct result of official guidance, issued by registration bodies and health services, in response to the UK State’s Lockdown policies.
The NHS issued guidance stating care home residents should not be conveyed to hospital; they operated an apparent policy of discharging COVID 19 positive patients into care homes; GP’s were advised not to visit care settings, with consultation conducted without examination via video calls; ambulance response times increased dramatically, practically removing vital emergency care the most vulnerable; essential PPE for care home staff wasn’t supplied, further reducing their capacity to care for those most at risk; testing for COVID 19 wasn’t extended to care settings, leaving care staff confused and uncertain of the risk, with furlough further reducing staffing levels; there were widespread reports of residents having “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) notices attached to their care plans, without their knowledge or consent, and this practice seemingly extended to other vulnerable adults, such as those with learning difficulties.
There is little to no evidence that children are either at risk from COVID 19 or spread SARS-CoV-2 to adults.
However there is evidence that children are dying as a result of UK State Lockdown policies.
Yet still the MSM persist with their dangerous fake news the COVID 19 is a childhood risk. Children’s lives mean nothing in the pursuit of the Great Reset.
By mid June the UK COVID 19 mortality risk was negligible and the so called pandemic was effectively over. There has been no significant excess mortality in England & Wales for more than 13 weeks. Since mid June deaths in care settings have been at or below normal levels and COVID 19 has accounted for less illness and death than combined influenza and pneumonia.
Therefore, the MSM propaganda has shifted towards cases and the distraction of face masks. The MSM propagandists tell us that wearing masks will protect us from the SARS-CoV-2 respiratory virus. However, they clearly have no effect against influenza.
For months, the UK State consistently told the public that face masks were entirely unnecessary. After years of gold standard science, demonstrating no viral benefit to wearing face masks, suddenly they became mandatory.
This was a purely political decision and certainly wasn’t led by any science.
The WHO did not recommend face masks but were then pressurised by national governments to change their advice. Because there was no science to inform this decision, the WHO hastily cobbled together some meta-analysis, which somehow missed every single randomised control trial showing how ineffective masks are, in order to falsely claim the science had recently changed.
Like virtually every other aspect of the supposed COVID 19 pandemic, the only scientific basis for this policy is behavioural science. The face mask ruse is being used to distract the public from the fact that there is now no justification for any restrictions. No matter what the UK State claims the alert level is.
The objective is to move people away from making rational decisions to become ‘situated’ decision-makers. This enables the choice environment to be shifted towards the dreaded altered context of the “second wave.”
The Hard Wired Second Wave
The UK State is not unique. It is just one of a number of globalist States that have colluded to foist the COVID 19 scamdemic upon the world. The Great Reset is a centrally devised and controlled global objective for all partners States.
To say that COVID 19 is a scamdemic is not to allege that it isn’t a deadly disease. It has caused terrible, but far from unprecedented, loss of life and every death leaves a gaping hole that can never be repaired. Our only hope is that we learn to live with pain.
In the effort to create the social, economic and political conditions for the Great Reset the UK State is among those who have condemned people to die alone, torn from their loved ones. The sickening truth of the scamdemic is that these heartbreaking losses have been exploited to control the living.
This has been done for the sole benefit of a despicable, uncaring parasite class. They have global control only because we allow it and the vast majority passively give consent without even knowing it. Constantly directed as situated decision makers, fed nothing but propaganda to ensure their automatic behaviour.
We won’t rid ourselves of the malevolent rule of the parasite class by using a party political system built to protect them, and advance their interests. Other peaceful solutions exist and we must pursue them or suffer this malignancy forever.
It is not enough for the them that people die isolated and afraid, nor that entire populations live in gratuitous fear. The Great Reset offers them the promise of the New World Order technocracy and the vaccine controlled, global biosecurity State. They simply don’t care who becomes collateral damage along the way.
It seems that we have all been set up for the second wave, hard wired into the scamdemic from the start. The final push to permanently frame the choice environment.
Analysis shows that the phrase “second wave” was trending from the day that PHE downgraded COVID 19, due to low mortality rates. The trend spiked significantly as mortality declined below all cause averages and again when it approached statistical zero.
The UK State’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) recently leaked a report to the MSM claiming that 85,000 people could die from COVID 19 in the UK this winter.
This followed the claims of former GlaxoSmithKline R&D President and current Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK State, Sir Patrick Vallance, who claimed 120,000 would die.
The Scientific evidence shows that COVID 19 reaches the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) at around 20% of the population, or even less.
At this stage, it appears the virus has burned out and is incapable of infecting or making more people sick, save for the tiny minority with severely compromised immune systems. The UK has long passed this threshold.
Further evidence shows that a sizeable proportion of human beings, possibly up to 60%, already carry T-Cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from previous coronavirus and SARS infections. This part of the population was never at any significant risk.
There is no apparent need for a vaccine and, despite the clear suppression of treatments that could have potentially saved thousands, the fact that cases continue to rise, while hospital admission and deaths are virtually nothing, demonstrates that the COVID 19 pandemic is finished. The only thing the UK State’s testing programs are allegedly finding are residual infections that present virtually no risk to anybody. The increase in “cases” is directly proportional to the increasing number of tests.
Yet none of that matters to the State planners and propagandist pedlars of the scamdemic. Their hard-hitting emotional messaging is divorced from informing the public. A significant proportion of the MSM has been co-opted to serve nothing and no one but the parasite class.
Despite the fact that it is now certain that Lockdowns are the worst possible response to COVID 19, still SAGE “experts” argue for further, various Lockdown measures that absolutely don’t work. The only fathomable reason for this is to continue preparations for the Great Reset. Either that, or SAGE are collectively, scientifically illiterate.
A recent study by health-tech contractors Medefer estimated that the Lockdown response, to the low level threat of COVID 19, has left more than 15 million people waiting for vital health care. While this report should be treated with some caution, as Medefer are one of many private companies hoping to swoop in and profit from the Lockdown accelerated destruction of the NHS, it is beyond doubt that millions of people will suffer irreparable health damage from the Lockdown. Mental health charities are among many who have warned of the Lockdown’s devastating impact.
The political response to this has been to argue about the definition of waiting lists. This is because the political class are the otiose puppets of the parasite class and, as such, they don’t provide any public benefit at all.
In every sense, they are just the expensive illusion of democracy.
Homelessness has reached 320,000 in the UK and freedom of information requests reveal that, in England alone, nearly 20,000 household have been made technically homeless during the Lockdown. As we discussed in Part 1 the economic destruction delivered by the lockdown is unprecedented. The link between poverty and a wide range of health inequalities is beyond dispute.
With its Lockdown, the UK State has created a health crisis that will make current Lockdown and COVID 19 deaths seem like a minor, public health hiccup. Given what appears to be the appalling statistical deception and rancid propaganda that the UK State has relied upon thus far, it is easy to see how the second wave deception could emerge.
This autumn, with it’s disorienting death registration process in place, and a population of immune suppressed, mask wearing, recently released detainees facing the usual seasonal flu and pneumonia risks, the UK State, and its supplicant MSM, have everything ready to create a psychological operation beyond imagination. The likely objective will be to consolidate on the work already done, and permanently transform the people from a population of autonomous individuals, capable of rational thought into a herd of situated decision makers whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’.
The Lockdown’s existing impact upon treatments for cancer, heart disease, and a range of serious, life threatening conditions, combined with huge waiting lists, struggling health services and the normal excess winter pressures upon the NHS, will be more than enough to create an appalling health crisis. All slickly blamed upon the second wave of COVID 19.
I truly hope I am wrong. However, it is by no means beyond the UK State to do this.
If it again claims people need to be placed under house arrest; should it insist we can’t be with our loved ones, that we must avoid each other, literally like the plague; if it labels anyone who disagrees a “COVID denier” and starts “quarantining” people who don’t comply, then you will have a choice to make.
You can be a situated decision makers, or you can be an an autonomous individual, making rational decisions. It’s not hard. Just stop believing everything you are told, especially from the likes of me, do some independent research, take a long hard look at the evidence, and decide for yourself if you can give any credence to the claims of the UK State and its global partners.
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together


offguardian--2020-09-08--WATCH: 9/11 Truth on the 19th Anniversary

Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org joins James to discuss the various actions , inquests , studies , documentaries and conferences that @ @ @ @ @ anniversary of 9/11 .
OffGuardian is also planning a short series articles on relating 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ a “ new normal ” , and how the topic takes on a new relevance @ @ @ @ @ .

Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org joins James to discuss the various actions, inquests, studies, documentaries and conferences that are happening around the 19th anniversary of 9/11.
OffGuardian is also planning a short series articles on relating 9/11 to the current push for a “new normal”, and how the topic takes on a new relevance in the age of Covid.
Stay tuned.


offguardian--2020-09-07--Social media fact-checking, brought to you by the Deep State

Almost four years of mainstream media hype about “ fake news ” and “ Russian meddling ” propaganda has brought to the world exactly what they were intended to bring : an effective mechanism for internet and social media censorship .
In the center of this move toward global discourse control is an organization called the Poynter Institute , home to the International Fact-Checking Network ( IFCN ) , a body created to coordinate , promote and train dozens of fact-checkers from around the world .
The IFCN and many non-profits working in the same field are funded by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era , like George Soros , Pierre Omidyar , Bill Gates , and even the Koch brothers…but also by the US Department of State and a shady “ aid ” – in reality , political meddling – organization , the National Endowment for Democracy ( NED ) , historically linked to the CIA and regime change operations .
Google and Facebook – itself tied to the warmongering Atlantic Council and its “ Digital Forensic Research Lab ” – are also associated with Poynter , by funding and partnerships to fight “ fake news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ automated ” fact-checking program for the upcoming 2020 ) .
The marriage between Poynter ’ s IFCN , politically inclined billionaires , the State Department – and the whitewashed public face of the Deep State – suggest that the institute is probably working in what Nelson Poynter , its founder , worked on for a key part of his life : propaganda and censorship for the US government .
Although this information is not available in Nelson Poynter ’ s Wikipedia profile or in poynter.org ’ s history page , his work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly a secret .
A resemblance of his wife , Henrietta , also at the institute ’ s website , quickly passes over the fact that Poynter did work for the Office of War Information ( OWI ) during WWII , but his specific role as a government censor and propagandist is never mentioned .
Nevertheless , Hollywood Goes to War , a book written in 1987 by Clayton R. Koppes and Gregory D. Black , is one of the many historical sources that tell the details of Poynter ’ s job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voice of America Nelson Poynter was recruited by the OWI with his wife Henrietta , who worked as assistant program chief under Elmer Davis , head of the agency .
She came up with the name for the “ Voice of America ” , the famous psychological war operation of the US government .
The radio project was established in February 1942 and soon grew to be the most important US overt propaganda arm of the Cold War .
Unlike his wife ’ s job , Poynter ’ s regarded not radio – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism – but movies .
In 1942 , the OWI ’ s Bureau of Motion Pictures ( BMP ) set up office in Hollywood , naming Poynter as its head .
His mission was to act as liaison between the agency and the owners of Warner Brothers , Twentieth Century Fox , MGM and the other big studio names .
Elmer Davis , head of the OWI , regarded films as : Davis was a career journalist who worked for ten years for the New York Times before being recruited by the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House needed the film industry to incorporate specific themes in their movies , ideas that promoted the notion of WWII as being a “ popular ” war , fought to defend his Four Freedoms .
But at first , Poynter ’ s office in Hollywood had little veto power over what the industry could produce – for the entire Western world – limiting itself to suggest cosmetic changes here and there , or the toning down of reactionary and racist imagery and language , an inherent feature in the Hollywood of that era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fairly good terms with the US Army , historically close to the industry .
Its owners were happy to portrait US wars abroad as heroic , in exchange for the lending of military equipment , installations and expert advice .
But in most cases , a disappointed Poynter complained , war ended up only as “ a backdrop ” for shallow romance , cheap comedies and other proven formulas .
Poynter and his boss at the BMP , Lowell Mellett , also hired a former assistant of Harold Lasswell , a famous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 30s – that democracy needed propaganda because people were not the best judges of their own interest .
Eventually , the team devised a way to exert more power over the unruly , reactionary and overly commercial Hollywood studios .
They decided to ask the US Office of Censorship to weight in and threat them with banning “ offending ” films from export , seriously reducing their potential earnings .
According to Koppes and Black ’ s Hollywood Goes to War , it was a success , prompting MGM , Warner and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their scripts for review to the Poynter .
The BMP knew it was important to intervene right at that stage , before big amounts of money were spent in production .
Poynter was a diligent censor and propagandist , going as far as to suggest dialogues for the movie scripts he was reviewing , breaching “ one of the industries taboos ” and provoking the powerful tycoons , according to the authors mentioned above .
When the war ended , Poynter went back to journalism .
He eventually took over the St. Petersburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 ) , owned by his father .
He also founded the Congressional Quarterly with his wife Henrietta , who died in 1968 .
As we can read in the Poynter institute ’ s website : Nevertheless , historian W.C. Bourne explains that many of the OWI ’ s top brass – as Elmer Davis and Nelson Poynter , former journalists – returned to the corporate media after the war , but “ retained an abiding belief in the things for which OWI stood and the possibilities of accomplishment in the international information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retained the Deep State contacts and a nationalistic “ spirit of collaboration ” .
Nelson Poynter ’ s work for the government ended many decades ago , and it would be reasonable to suggest that his ties to the US government and its propaganda apparatus probably never involved the journalism institution he founded years after leaving the OWI .
But we have evidence pointing precisely in the opposite direction .
Firstly , the obvious – and open – ties between the institute and today ’ s version of the foreign meddling machine installed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( i.e .
the NED ) .
As informed on many occasions by independent journalists , one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy once admitted that : Secondly , the intimate ties between the Poynter Institute and the US State Department , which selected it to conduct the “ Edward Murrow Program for Journalists ” .
It brings together “ more than 100 emerging international journalists from around the world to examine journalistic practices in the United States ” .
In other words , to be indoctrinated in Western corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a potential foreign opinion leader .
The State Department ’ s Murrow program is part of Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs ( ECA ) , an agency dedicated to “ cultural diplomacy ” , intimately tied to intelligence and foreign policy since way before the Cold War .
The participants to be trained by Poynter are chosen by US embassies abroad .
A 2017 report of the historical success of the educational exchange agency stated that : Thirdly , the Poynter Institute , too , redacted an infamous blacklist of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intention of marginalize and , in this case , deny many of them of any kind of advertisement money .
A blacklist to defund them all For this operation , launched on April 30 , 2019 , Poynter ganged-up with the rest of the fact-checking “ cartel ” , so to speak .
The institute gathered the blacklists and analysis done in recent years by Snopes , Fact-check.org , Politifact ( owned by the Tampa Bay Times and Poynter ) , OpenSources and the Fake News Codex , and used them to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 515 “ unreliable ” news websites .
It was retracted shortly after its publication , on May 2 , after coming under criticism for “ unreliability and poor methodology ” .
The irony !
And this should be understood as an indictment on the whole bunch .
As one critic from the George Washington University noted : To add insult to injury , Poynter ’ s dubious list of “ unreliable websites ” was intended to cause financial harm to those named in it , by guiding advertisers and ad-technology applications to deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Stephen Gutowski , a writer from one of the affected websites , Free Beacon , wrote : Philip Klein , from The Washington Examiner – also listed – thought it was : Most of the non-profits behind Poynter ’ s blacklist share patrons , except for the controversial Snopes , that runs on less grant money than advertisement revenues .
The International Fact-checking Network and its more than a hundred “ associated ” – subordinated – smaller fact checkers around the globe , are also funded by the same “ philanthropists ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already finances tens of mainstream corporate news outlets with tens of millions of dollars , just like the Columbia Journalism Review recently uncovered .
In a blatant conflict of interests , those same fact-checkers often ( try to ) debunk information related to the Gates Foundation , just like a private PR agency .
Many lesser players in the global constellation of fact checkers are also funded directly by George Soros and his Open Society Foundation , the Ford Foundation , the US embassy and/or the NED .
When “ fact-checking ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit themselves to copy/paste from their “ parent ” sources , like Poynter ’ s Politifact and Snopes .
As Emil Marmol and Lee Mager recently wrote for Project Censored , the “ fake news ” psychological operation was little more than a “ Trojan horse for silencing alternative news and reestablishing corporate news dominance ” : The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the degenerative process under the guise of “ protecting us ” , prompting democratic governments to take dangerous paths , like arresting citizens for promoting street marches on Facebook .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the regular citizen , we must keep it open so more of us can take a look .
Daniel Espinosa lives in Arequipa , second largest city of Peru .
He graduated in Communication Sciences in Lima and started researching propaganda and mainstream media .
He writes for a Peruvian in-print weekly , Hildebrandt en sus trece , since 2018 , and collaborates with many online media .
His writings are a critique of the role of mass media in society .
You can read his previous work through his MuckRack profile @

Daniel Espinosa
Almost four years of mainstream media hype about “fake news” and “Russian meddling” propaganda has brought to the world exactly what they were intended to bring: an effective mechanism for internet and social media censorship.
In the center of this move toward global discourse control is an organization called the Poynter Institute, home to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a body created to coordinate, promote and train dozens of fact-checkers from around the world.
The IFCN and many non-profits working in the same field are funded by the big capitalist “philanthropists” of our era, like George Soros, Pierre Omidyar, Bill Gates, and even the Koch brothers…but also by the US Department of State and a shady “aid” – in reality, political meddling – organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), historically linked to the CIA and regime change operations.
Google and Facebook – itself tied to the warmongering Atlantic Council and its “Digital Forensic Research Lab” – are also associated with Poynter, by funding and partnerships to fight “fake news” (including the development of an “automated” fact-checking program for the upcoming 2020).
The marriage between Poynter’s IFCN, politically inclined billionaires, the State Department – and the whitewashed public face of the Deep State – suggest that the institute is probably working in what Nelson Poynter, its founder, worked on for a key part of his life: propaganda and censorship for the US government.
Although this information is not available in Nelson Poynter’s Wikipedia profile or in poynter.org’s history page, his work for a government propaganda agency is not exactly a secret. A resemblance of his wife, Henrietta, also at the institute’s website, quickly passes over the fact that Poynter did work for the Office of War Information (OWI) during WWII, but his specific role as a government censor and propagandist is never mentioned.
Nevertheless, Hollywood Goes to War, a book written in 1987 by Clayton R. Koppes and Gregory D. Black, is one of the many historical sources that tell the details of Poynter’s job.
Film censorship and the birth of the Voice of America
Nelson Poynter was recruited by the OWI with his wife Henrietta, who worked as assistant program chief under Elmer Davis, head of the agency. She came up with the name for the “Voice of America”, the famous psychological war operation of the US government.
The radio project was established in February 1942 and soon grew to be the most important US overt propaganda arm of the Cold War.
Unlike his wife’s job, Poynter’s regarded not radio – or his previous line of work, journalism – but movies. In 1942, the OWI’s Bureau of Motion Pictures (BMP) set up office in Hollywood, naming Poynter as its head. His mission was to act as liaison between the agency and the owners of Warner Brothers, Twentieth Century Fox, MGM and the other big studio names.
Elmer Davis, head of the OWI, regarded films as:
The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds”, in part, because they “do not realize that they are being propagandized”.
Davis was a career journalist who worked for ten years for the New York Times before being recruited by the government. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s White House needed the film industry to incorporate specific themes in their movies, ideas that promoted the notion of WWII as being a “popular” war, fought to defend his Four Freedoms.
But at first, Poynter’s office in Hollywood had little veto power over what the industry could produce – for the entire Western world – limiting itself to suggest cosmetic changes here and there, or the toning down of reactionary and racist imagery and language, an inherent feature in the Hollywood of that era.
The heads of the studios were in fairly good terms with the US Army, historically close to the industry. Its owners were happy to portrait US wars abroad as heroic, in exchange for the lending of military equipment, installations and expert advice.
But in most cases, a disappointed Poynter complained, war ended up only as “a backdrop” for shallow romance, cheap comedies and other proven formulas. Poynter and his boss at the BMP, Lowell Mellett, also hired a former assistant of Harold Lasswell, a famous social researcher who said – back in the 30s – that democracy needed propaganda because people were not the best judges of their own interest.
Eventually, the team devised a way to exert more power over the unruly, reactionary and overly commercial Hollywood studios. They decided to ask the US Office of Censorship to weight in and threat them with banning “offending” films from export, seriously reducing their potential earnings.
According to Koppes and Black’s Hollywood Goes to War, it was a success, prompting MGM, Warner and the other big names to start turning their scripts for review to the Poynter. The BMP knew it was important to intervene right at that stage, before big amounts of money were spent in production.
Poynter was a diligent censor and propagandist, going as far as to suggest dialogues for the movie scripts he was reviewing, breaching “one of the industries taboos” and provoking the powerful tycoons, according to the authors mentioned above.
When the war ended, Poynter went back to journalism. He eventually took over the St. Petersburg Times (renamed Tampa Bay Times in 2012), owned by his father. He also founded the Congressional Quarterly with his wife Henrietta, who died in 1968. As we can read in the Poynter institute’s website:
When Henrietta died suddenly at the age of 66, Nelson mourned deeply. ‘Her passing marked the end of an era for Mr. Poynter,’ said David Shedden, former research librarian at The Poynter Institute. ‘He started looking to the future and thinking about his legacy. He focused on creating a school for journalists, which of course became the Modern Media Institute, and then the Poynter Institute’.”
Nevertheless, historian W.C. Bourne explains that many of the OWI’s top brass – as Elmer Davis and Nelson Poynter, former journalists – returned to the corporate media after the war, but “retained an abiding belief in the things for which OWI stood and the possibilities of accomplishment in the international information picture”.
Many of them also retained the Deep State contacts and a nationalistic “spirit of collaboration”.
A legacy of censorship
Nelson Poynter’s work for the government ended many decades ago, and it would be reasonable to suggest that his ties to the US government and its propaganda apparatus probably never involved the journalism institution he founded years after leaving the OWI.
But we have evidence pointing precisely in the opposite direction.
Firstly, the obvious – and open – ties between the institute and today’s version of the foreign meddling machine installed by the US during the Cold War (i.e. the NED). As informed on many occasions by independent journalists, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy once admitted that:
A lot of what we do today was done covertly twenty-five years ago by the CIA.”
Secondly, the intimate ties between the Poynter Institute and the US State Department, which selected it to conduct the “Edward Murrow Program for Journalists”. It brings together “more than 100 emerging international journalists from around the world to examine journalistic practices in the United States”.
In other words, to be indoctrinated in Western corporate journalism and culture and start a relationship with a potential foreign opinion leader.
The State Department’s Murrow program is part of Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), an agency dedicated to “cultural diplomacy”, intimately tied to intelligence and foreign policy since way before the Cold War. The participants to be trained by Poynter are chosen by US embassies abroad.
A 2017 report of the historical success of the educational exchange agency stated that:
…565 alumni of the ECA programs are current heads or former heads of state and government, and 31 alumni are heads of international organizations.”
Thirdly, the Poynter Institute, too, redacted an infamous blacklist of “fake news” sites, with the intention of marginalize and, in this case, deny many of them of any kind of advertisement money.
A blacklist to defund them all
For this operation, launched on April 30, 2019, Poynter ganged-up with the rest of the fact-checking “cartel”, so to speak.
The institute gathered the blacklists and analysis done in recent years by Snopes, Fact-check.org, Politifact (owned by the Tampa Bay Times and Poynter), OpenSources and the Fake News Codex, and used them to create the mother of all blacklists, naming 515 “unreliable” news websites.
It was retracted shortly after its publication, on May 2, after coming under criticism for “unreliability and poor methodology”. The irony! And this should be understood as an indictment on the whole bunch. As one critic from the George Washington University noted:
Beneath the veneer of its precision, the fact-checking enterprise relies heavily on opinion and interpretation…If a list summarizing fact-checking results and verified by fact checkers is ultimately retracted by those same fact checkers for not being rigorous, it underscores the question of why we should trust anything from the fact-checking community.”
To add insult to injury, Poynter’s dubious list of “unreliable websites” was intended to cause financial harm to those named in it, by guiding advertisers and ad-technology applications to deny them of ads.
After the retraction, Stephen Gutowski, a writer from one of the affected websites, Free Beacon, wrote:
What a disgusting exercise in bad faith from an organization that’s supposed to be about improving and promoting journalism. Instead, they’re creating tabloid-level listicles to smear reporters without offering even a single piece of evidence. Shame on you, @Poynter.”
Philip Klein, from The Washington Examiner – also listed – thought it was:
…worrisome to call for advertisers blacklisting news organizations, especially given the opacity of the process and arbitrariness of many of the judgements [sic].”
The “cartel”
Most of the non-profits behind Poynter’s blacklist share patrons, except for the controversial Snopes, that runs on less grant money than advertisement revenues.
The International Fact-checking Network and its more than a hundred “associated” – subordinated – smaller fact checkers around the globe, are also funded by the same “philanthropists”, like Bill Gates, whose foundation already finances tens of mainstream corporate news outlets with tens of millions of dollars, just like the Columbia Journalism Review recently uncovered.
Regarding Poynter and Gates, specifically:
…Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites, including Africa Check, and noted that she is “absolutely confident” that no bias or blind spots emerged from the work, though she acknowledged that she has not reviewed it herself.”
In a blatant conflict of interests, those same fact-checkers often (try to) debunk information related to the Gates Foundation, just like a private PR agency.
Many lesser players in the global constellation of fact checkers are also funded directly by George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the US embassy and/or the NED.
When “fact-checking”, the members of this private-public consortium often limit themselves to copy/paste from their “parent” sources, like Poynter’s Politifact and Snopes.
As Emil Marmol and Lee Mager recently wrote for Project Censored, the “fake news” psychological operation was little more than a “Trojan horse for silencing alternative news and reestablishing corporate news dominance”:
The fake news hysteria created by those in government and echoed by the corporate news media is being harnessed and used as a pretext for the suppression of dissent and counterhegemonic viewpoints while re-establishing the corporate press’s preeminence as the sole purveyor and manufacturer of public opinion”.
The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the degenerative process under the guise of “protecting us”, prompting democratic governments to take dangerous paths, like arresting citizens for promoting street marches on Facebook.
The internet opened up a world of information to the regular citizen, we must keep it open so more of us can take a look.
Daniel Espinosa lives in Arequipa, second largest city of Peru. He graduated in Communication Sciences in Lima and started researching propaganda and mainstream media. He writes for a Peruvian in-print weekly, Hildebrandt en sus trece, since 2018, and collaborates with many online media. His writings are a critique of the role of mass media in society. You can read his previous work through his MuckRack profile.