Hi Everyone,
I would like to revisit the Covid-19 pandemic. In April this year, I put together a 9 part series where I discussed the possible economic and social impact of Covid-19 and the restrictions being implemented. Five months later, Governments are still imposing restrictions. The number of deaths have dramatically fallen but the number of reported cases are climbing again for many countries (Worldometer, see countries such as Spain, France and the UK for the month of September). Many are calling this increase the start of the second wave of Covid-19. Just a sharp increase in reported cases is a flimsy argument to support this claim, as deaths have not followed even if we assume a lag of two or three weeks when considering data from France and Spain.
At this point, it appears the Covid-19 pandemic, or now lack of one, is being used as a manipulation tool to control the people. This is blatantly obvious when we consider Australia, which has barely been affected by Covid-19; see the last section of my post Is Socialism being used as a path to Fascism?. For Australia, it appears as if they are following a script rather than responding to reality. On a lesser scale, several other countries are following a similar approach with this, so far, non-existent second wave.
In this post, I want to explore the possible use of a virus to control populations of people, as I strongly believe that this is being attempted with Covid-19.
Like an elaborate plot to poison the world
Imagine somebody released poisonous gas into a building. All those that inhaled the gas would die in a few hours if they did not receive the antidote. Imagine there is just one person who has access to the antidote and there is sufficient antidote for all those that inhaled the poisonous gas. Everyone who inhaled the poisonous gas would want the antidote. They would be desperate. They would be willing to pay whatever was demanded. They would comply with whatever instruction they were given to obtain the antidote. The person with the antidote would have absolute control over all those in the building. However, a building may only have a few hundred people inside it. It is possible several buildings could be pumped with the poisonous gas but that is only likely to affect just a few thousand people. A city’s water supply could be contaminated with poison; this could potentially poison even more people than using a gas. Poisoning has its limits; It has limits in terms of how many it can reach as well as how long it can remain a threat. Alternatively, a virus may not need to be subject to these limitations.
In the case of a poisonous gas, the person holding the antidote would have incredible power over all those who inhaled the gas. A virus could be used in a very similar manner but could work on a much larger scale and for a much longer time. Instead of an antidote, someone could possess a cure or a vaccine. This would potentially give such a person enormous power over those who believe themselves at risk. The poison example is a massive oversimplification of the use of a virus. There are several important differences between a virus and poison. These differences relate to control, duration, predictability, acquisition and cure. In regards to control, poison can be used to target particular areas and people. It is far more difficult to do so with a virus. A poison can be very fast acting, which would prevent access to another source for an antidote. A virus would not act as quickly as it requires time to spread; therefore, there could be time for alternative action. A virus is more unpredictable, different people can be expected to show different symptoms. A virus can also mutate and change over time. An ideal 'type' of virus is far more difficult to create than a poison is to obtain. A cure or vaccine would also be harder to create or obtain than an antidote for a poison. These differences make it harder to use as a tool of control than poison.
What would they want you to believe about the virus?
To control people using a pandemic, the virus needs to be believed to be a credible threat. People would need to believe the virus spreads quickly and is very dangerous, possibly deadly. Those trying to control us through the virus would need to appear as the only ones who can save us from it. They need to be the ones offering the cure or vaccine that puts an end to the virus. They would not be able to offer this cure or vaccine immediately. Instead, they would offer a promise of obtaining the cure or vaccine. In the meantime, they would take advantage of the fear caused by the virus. They could issue instructions or make new laws on the pretence of protecting the people from the virus. If the threat of the virus remains credible, people will follow these new laws regardless of how many freedoms they lose. Eventually, a cure or vaccine will become available; people will demand it, if they believe that the prescribed approach is the only response that will ensure their safety.
How would they convince people that the threat was sufficient to put themselves at the mercy of authority?
I believe at least three requirements are necessary. The first requirement is finding or creating the 'right' virus that meets the criteria of being a credible and prolonged threat. However, the virus cannot be so virulent that it cannot eventually be halted. The second requirement is to obtain control of the response to the virus. This would involve being the trusted authority on how to stay protected. This will enable new rules and laws to be implemented with minimal resistance. This requirement also involves maintaining control over how the pandemic is intended to be resolved such as through a cure or vaccine. The third requirement is control over information. This would involve ensuring the mainstream media keep to the script of how dangerous the virus is as well as how important it is to follow all guidelines, rules and laws relating to the pandemic. Alternative media would need to be discredited, restricted, or even banned. This would involve control over major social media such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Having the ‘right’ virus for the job
To control people with an engineered virus would require a careful balance of several important characteristics of the virus. This would be the most difficult requirement to achieve, as it would be very difficult to predict fully how a virus would behaviour once released into the public. In layman terms, I have listed several characteristics of a virus that I believe would need to be balanced to generate the desired effect.
- Rate of spread of the virus
- Lethality of the virus
- Method of spread of the virus
- Duration and severity of effect
- Rate of mutation
- Ability to detect
- Level of initial immunity
- Level of acquired immunity
- Effectiveness of interventions
- Ability to cure
- Ability to prevent
Rate of spread of the virus
The virus would need to spread at the right speed. If it spread too slowly, it could be halted before it reaches a large number of people. If it spread too fast, it might end too soon for it to be exploited adequately or it might not be able to be stopped at all. Generally, a faster spread would be preferred as the extent of the threat can be more easily presented. If it is not spreading faster enough, it could be given some additional help through intentional spreading.
Lethality of the virus
The virus would need to be deadly to at least a few people or it will not be considered a credible threat. It cannot be too deadly or too many people will die and it will be harder to protect certain people. A virus that is very deadly and spreads quickly could become too difficult to control even if cures and treatments are available.
Method of spread of the virus
A virus can spread in many different ways. These could include air, liquids, and surfaces. Maintaining a certain level of ambiguity over how the virus spreads would create more fear, which would lead to more compliance with rules and regulations.
Duration and severity of effect
Even if the virus is not normally deadly under most circumstances, it would need to make at least some people significantly sick and this sickness would need to persist. This is to demonstrate the threat the virus possess to our quality of life. Prolonged sickness could also prove to be profitable if treatments are required for the lasting effects.
Rate of mutation
The rate of mutation would be difficult to gauge. If it mutates too quickly it could become too difficult to combat and even identify. Some form of mutation could be useful for prolonging the duration of the pandemic.
Ability to detect
The virus would need to be detected to prove its existence. The efficiency of this detection need not be particularly accurate. Inaccuracy in detection can be useful for manipulating the number of infections. If fear of the virus starts to wane. The number of infections could be inflated.
Level of initial immunity
It is possible that some people could be immune to the virus prior to the outbreak. For example, a person could have had another virus, which was similar to the engineered virus, and this could be offering him or her protection. Ideally, the engineered virus needs to be sufficiently different from existing similar viruses so that its spread is not hindered. If there is initial immunity, it could be a sign that existing medication can be used to treat the virus. This would take some control away from those offering a cure or vaccine.
Level of acquired immunity
When someone has contracted a virus and then recovered, it is quite common for them to gain some immunity to the virus and this could protect them from catching it again. If people acquire immunity, it will eventually slow the spread of the virus, which is bad. However, the acquisition of immunity is likely to be important for the development of a credible vaccine. Therefore, the virus should create some form of immunity after infection. If the vaccine is ineffective, acquired immunity might be needed to naturally stop the virus.
Effectiveness of interventions
Interventions need to have some level of effectiveness to demonstrate that the virus can be slowed. This will improve compliance to these interventions. However, the interventions cannot be overly effective, as they may end the pandemic before the cure or vaccine has been administered.
Ability to cure
The virus needs to be difficult to cure. This is important in order to prevent other people finding a cure before the designated cure is ready to be administered. If someone else finds a cure, it would need to be discredited very quickly. It is possible that the virus cannot be cured; therefore, reliance falls to a vaccine.
Ability to prevent
The virus needs to be reasonably difficult to prevent. Interventions should be able to slow it down but not completely able to stop it. If a vaccine is possible, it needs to have some credibility. This credibility could be based on the vaccine’s actual ability to stop the virus or its perceived ability to stop it. A vaccine may not need to work if by the time it is administered, the real threat of the virus no longer exists. The vaccine could be given credit for something that just occurred naturally.
Summary of an ideal virus
The virus should spread quickly and cause some fatalities to generate the initial fear and call for action. The virus needs to persist for many months so that those in charge can exploit it. If an effective cure or vaccine is not possible, the virus needs to run its course naturally. The ineffective cure or vaccine can still be administered once the threat is over but it should still be granted the credit for ending the pandemic.
Was Covid-19 the right virus for the job?
Covid-19 fits many of the characteristics that I would consider an ideal virus to be used to manipulate people. It has spread very quickly around the world and has affected almost every country in the world. The virus can be deadly to elderly people and people with other serious illnesses. People in care homes have been greatly affected; this could have been accidental or they may been targeted as a means of increasing the number of deaths by Covid-19. For the majority of people infected, it presents itself as a minor illness and many people do not have any symptoms at all. The virus is not as deadly as desired to create global fear. However, mainstream media have done a good job at exaggerating the dangers of Covid-19. The virus appears to spread mostly through person-to-person contact. Governments have used this characteristic to implement rules and laws that keep people separated. These include social distancing, curfews, lockdowns, partial lockdowns, restrictions on gatherings, wearing facemasks, and tracing of movement and activity. These restrictions both control people as well as prevent people from resisting the measures implemented.
The greatest weakness of Covid-19 as an instrument of manipulation is that its spread has slowed down too quickly. For many people, Covid-19 no longer appears as a serious threat. Both Governments and mainstream media are still insisting that Covid-19 is a threat but are running very low on evidence to support these claims. The UK have used their Chief Scientist (Patrick Vallance) in an attempt to cause fearmongering by presenting an absurd graph of a possible scenario where Covid-19 cases would reach almost 50,000 by the middle of October. The mainstream media such as the BBC, Sky News, ITV, Yahoo Finance, The Guardian, and several others have presented the scenario as a plausible prediction. See Figure 1 below for this ‘possible’ scenario.
Figure 1: Chief Scientist Covid-19 case example
Various sources such as BBC
Pandemic Winners
If a pandemic is going to be manufactured, it is going to require plenty of cooperation between various groups of people and organisations across the world. These include Governments, scientists, international organisations, healthcare workers, journalists, and large private enterprise. This may seem like an unlikely feat but it could be possible if all involved have something to gain from a pandemic and the promotion of this pandemic.
- Government gains more power over the people.
- Scientists can obtain larger research grants and higher salaries.
- International organisations can obtain higher grants and be given more authority.
- Healthcare workers could be paid more for work relating to the virus.
- Journalists can gain more attention and exposure from pushing the pandemic story and they could be threatened with censorship if they do not.
- Large private enterprise could earn more from reduced competition as well as obtain Government grants.
I discuss the possible winners and losers from the pandemic in my post Covid-19 – Part 7: Winners and Losers. Regardless of whether the pandemic is real or been orchestrated, the winners and losers do not vary significantly considering the actions that have been taken by many Governments.
Conclusion
Creating a pandemic and using it as a tool to obtain more power and money would be unimaginable to many. It is a heinous act, which would cost and destroy the lives of millions of people around the world. I consider that the Covid-19 pandemic has most likely been a planned pandemic based on the responses I have seen by Government, their advisors as well as intentional bodies. I initially entertained the idea of such a planned event based on past and current actions of Governments. These actions include the 9/11 attacks, Iraq weapons of mass destruction, operation paperclip, mass vaccination of children, support of terrorist organisations, trade sanctions on some of the poorest countries in the world, war on drugs, protection of wealthy criminals, and mass spying operations on the public. A planned pandemic would be consistent with previous actions.
I am also greatly concerned about the vaccines that are being rushed as a response to the pandemic. I doubt these vaccines will be very effective against Covid-19 and I do not think they need to be, as it is naturally concluding. What I am more concerned about are the other effects of the vaccines, intended or unintended. I discussed vaccines in my post A closer look at vaccines. I found that even very established vaccines are likely causing harmful effects in children. A rushed vaccine such as one for Covid-19 would be even riskier. However, from a pharmaceutical company’s perspective, a vaccine that causes long-term damage is likely to be profitable. From a Government’s perspective, a vaccine that makes the population more docile or compliant is an advantage, as they will face less opposition. Also, a vaccine could serve the depopulation agenda if it deceases fertility or causes a disorder such as Autism, which reduces the chances of human reproduction (Autism Awareness Centre).
We are living in a very pivotal time. The push for power and wealth is intensifying. The steps being taken to seize power have grown bolder and more apparent. We can choose to submit to this push or we can choose our own path. The world we live in is changing and will continue to change. This change does not need to be for the worse.
More posts
If you want to read any of my other posts, you can click on the links below. These links will lead you to posts containing my collection of works. These 'Collection of Works' posts have been updated to contain links to the Hive versions of my posts.
My New CBA Udemy Course
The course contains over 10 hours of video, over 60 downloadable resources, over 40 multiple-choice questions, 2 sample case studies, 1 practice CBA, life time access and a certificate on completion. The course is priced at the Tier 1 price of £20. I believe it is frequently available at half-price.
Future of Social Media
