[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 U.S. 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:
- 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.
(Bracketed information added)
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 Lab_s, 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 U.S. 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.
Well, It appears I've breached my limit So please see Part 2 - Continued
