by Iain Davis
[3] - https://in-this-together.com/the-flawed-psychology-of-conspiracy-theory/
[4] - https://archive.is/IBAke
[5] - https://archive.is/MXglH
[6] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200813183510/https://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-hospitals-have-four-times-more-empty-beds-than-normal/7027392.article
[7] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201128212125/https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/28/angry-tory-mps-turn-on-gove-after-overwhelmed-nhs-claims
[8] - https://archive.is/tcxOW
[9] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201021214743if_/https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-12/winter-pressures-and-covid-surge-causing-concern-for-nhs-staff
[10] - https://archive.is/gbRSr
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200426154651/https://www.hsj.co.uk/commissioning/thousands-of-extra-deaths-outside-hospital-not-attributed-to-covid-19/7027459.article
[12] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200414005231/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52242856
[13] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200423194056/https://www.hsj.co.uk/exclusive-deaths-of-nhs-staff-from-covid-19-analysed/7027471.article
[14] - https://archive.is/1kYqq
[15] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101212556/https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/russian-media-spreading-covid-19-disinformation
[16] - https://archive.is/ncZp4
[17] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201026223958/https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/2008.pdf
[18] - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/uc498-i/uc49801.htm
[19] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200429065407/https://www.vaccineimpact.org/resources/VIMC_orgchart_2019.pdf
[20] - https://archive.is/QJj4z
[21] - https://archive.is/KLgV2
[22] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22738893/
[23] - https://archive.is/ewkcA
[24] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200813075227/http://web.archive.org/web/20050210210053/www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/pandemic/en/
[25] - https://archive.is/6XX8o
[26] - https://pestcontrol.ru/assets/files/biblioteka/file/19-john_m_last-a_dictionary_of_epidemiology_4th_edition-oxford_university_press_usa_2000.pdf
[27] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101084226/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-pandemic-preparedness/uk-pandemic-preparedness
[28] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201103055909/http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/FeaturesManager-View-EN.asp?ID=900
[29] - https://archive.is/R3Oya
[30] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200709231145/https://true-democracy.ch/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Swine-Flu-Conspiracies-British-Medical-Journal-2010.pdf
[31] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210319060731/https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/16/9/10-0076_article
[32] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201203152318/http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=12463
[33] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201205043626/https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies
[34] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201206181744/https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/05/uk-coronavirus-adviser-prof-neil-ferguson-resigns-after-breaking-lockdown-rules
[35] - https://archive.is/AA2XU
[36] - https://archive.is/Kg77I
Chapter 4 - Keeping Us Safe
The majority of people who worked for the organisations which were complicit in the pseudopandemic fraud were unwitting influencers or other committed professionals who genuinely believed their work was beneficial. Only the core conspirators and their immediate informed influencers wanted to cause harm and create economic, political and social chaos. This was necessary to lead the world towards their planned solution.
As COVID 19 was a disease with a low mortality rate, comparable to seasonal influenza, its destructive potential alone was insufficient. Further measures to increase the public health risk were required to capitalise on the COVID 19 opportunity. Both informed and deceived influencers were vital to create the desired pseudopandemic disruption.
Neil Ferguson, from Imperial College London (ICL), was apparently indispensable to the UK State. They seemingly could not let him go, and were committed to protecting him. We might ask why he was such a key figure. He has no particularly relevant qualifications.
Ferguson studied at Oxford University achieving a BA in Physics in 1990 and in 1994 he earned his Ph.D in Theoretical Physics. He has no formal qualification in the either the biological or computer sciences, nor any training as an epidemiologist.
In May 2020, unconcerned about the risk of COVID 19, Ferguson received a visit from another household [1] to continue his affair with a woman that was not in his familial "bubble." The UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the social distancing rules applied to everyone and that Ferguson was right to resign as a government advisor. Hancock added that it was "just not possible" for Prof. Ferguson to continue in his government advisory role.
The Health Secretary misled the public. Ferguson continued as a government scientific advisor through his role within the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) who contribute to SAGE.
Reportedly, a government spokesperson [2] said that Prof. Ferguson was considered "one of the world's leading epidemiologists." It is worth noting the explanation given by Prof. Ferguson regarding why he had felt it was OK for him to ignore his own advice:
"I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms."
As one of the world's leading epidemiologists, though unqualified, he was referring to the concept of natural immunity. There were no available COVID 19 vaccines when Ferguson spoke about his natural, post infection resistance to the disease.
The idea that this natural immunity reaches a critical point within a population, where the disease is no longer able to infect new hosts, is called the herd effect (often referred to as community or herd immunity). Empirical data appearing to demonstrate the herd effect has been the subject scientific of debate [3] for many years.
What can be said is that diseases do not infect entire populations and some people are already immune. The debate relates to whether or not the herd effect partly explains this. The basic notion is that once a sufficient number of possible hosts have been infected they develop natural immunity and exhaust the pathogen's ability to spread. Protecting others, who may never be infected as a result.
The theory is born from observations in veterinary medicine and has nothing to do with vaccination. At the point where a disease runs out of viable hosts it's impact upon public health and mortality is consistently observed to wane. Many scientists suspect this may be due to the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT.) On balance, the evidence strongly favours herd immunity as a working hypothesis.
During the 2003 SARS outbreak [4] in Hong Kong for example, the disease distribution followed the familiar "bell curve" suggested by Farr's Law [5]. Some social distancing, limited quarantine of the most vulnerable and increased vigilance of basic hygiene, saw the disease pass through the usual phases without any possible vaccine intervention.
The herd immunity hypothesis seeks to explain why this disease pattern is invariably observed. If human populations were unable to naturally resist disease we would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. Community immunity, in some form, is an obvious epidemiological fact. How that immunity occurs is the question.
Researchers from Oxford University's Department of Zoology [6] published a paper explaining the theoretical HIT for SARS-CoV-2. They identified three distinct viral phases:
"(I) an initial phase of slow accumulation of new infections (often undetectable), (II) a second phase of rapid growth in cases of infection, disease and death, and (III) an eventual slow down of transmission due to the depletion of susceptible individuals, typically leading to the termination of the first
epidemic wave. The point of transition between phases I and II is known as the herd immunity threshold (HIT)."
By mid to late December 2020 numerous studies had detected existing immunity [7] to SARS-Cov-2 in the general population. This may well have been the result of our previous, widespread exposure to similar coronavirus such as SARS and the coronavirus strains which cause the common cold. Growing evidence suggested T-cell immunity [8] may have been key to this apparent "community immunity." It appeared that the HIT for SARS-CoV-2 was likely to be somewhere in the region of 20 - 40%.
None of this science had anything to do with vaccines. These studies were of unvaccinated populations. The epidemiological variations were attributable to other risk factors such as age and comorbidity, not vaccine uptake. The "herd effect" and the HIT were concepts that squarely related to the human beings' natural immunity to disease, which must exist or we wouldn't.
The gradual transition towards attributing herd immunity solely to vaccines can be seen in a 2011 paper by researchers from McMaster University [9] in Canada. The McMaster researchers said:
"The herd effect or herd immunity is an attractive way to extend vaccine benefits beyond the directly targeted population. It refers to the indirect protection of unvaccinated persons, whereby an increase in the prevalence of immunity by the vaccine prevents circulation of infectious agents in susceptible populations......A high uptake of vaccines is generally needed for success."
McMaster were suggesting that vaccination was the key to improved herd immunity. They have a long history of considerable industry funding. Through their MILO program [10] they have generated more than $500M in "income" in the last 5 years. Among their numerous industry and philanthropic partners are the BMGF who have contributed more than $20M [11] to McMaster's since 2015.
Insisting that herd immunity is only possible through vaccination was a persistant theme [12] in the MSM even prior to the pseudopandemic. The BBC defined [13] herd immunity as:
"The protection given to a population against an outbreak of a specific disease when a very high percentage of the population have been vaccinated against it."
There is no scientific justification for this claimed definition. The BBC went on to allege disease can only be combated with vaccine programmes.
As was common with promoters of the pseudopandemic, they simply ignored all the science which demonstrated their assertions weren't true. The 2003 SARS outbreak in Hong Kong could not be acknowledged because it illustrated how far removed from science their science reporting had become.
This claim was found in the BBC's Bitesize series for GCSE students (16 yr olds). Ensuring that young people "learn" the right medical science, despite it being incorrect. The BBC were not alone in "memory holing" inconvenient facts and scientific evidence.
The US. Center for Disease Control (CDC) once reported [14] that between 10 - 30 million US citizens were vaccinated with a Polio vaccine containing the carcinogenic SV40 virus. That fact has now been consigned to the dustbin of inaccessible history. The page has been removed from the CDC website and all reference to it expunged from their documentation.
During the pseudopandemic the WHO were engaged in exactly the same kind of memory holing. Until recently the WHO definition of herd immunity [16] was:
"Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection."
This explains why Neil Ferguson thought his natural immunity would allow him to safely ignore his own lockdown advice. He apparently got this fact wrong because the world's leading global health authority had memory holed any link between natural immunity and resistance to disease in the interim. The WHO's new definition now reads:
"Herd immunity, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached....Herd immunity exists when a high percentage of the population is vaccinated....For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated."
All the science looking at T-Cell immunity and the SARS-CoV-2 HIT is now invalid and meaningless. The hundreds of scientists and medical researchers, meticulously analysing the data and the epidemiological evidence, were wasting their time, because herd immunity can only officially be derived from vaccines now. There is no such thing as natural herd immunity in the post pseudopandemic world.
Scientific knowledge was apparently changed thanks to the science free opinion of one man. The new version of herd immunity was announced by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in his media briefing on 13th October 2020 [17]. His announcement to the gathered MSM formulated the new, globally accepted definition. No science required.
There is no new scientific evidence that provides any basis for this claimed definition of herd immunity. With a few keystrokes, the WHO simply changed the science. This version is now being taught to children, some of whom will go on to be the scientists of tomorrow. Whether they question this or not, it will be necessary for them to regurgitate it in examinations if they wish to pass.
The official pseudopandemic truth was enforced by the MSM and the tech giants who dominate social media and online search results. Alphabet's shell company Google own Youtube, the worlds second largest search engine, Google itself being the first. Their policy on so called medical misinformation stated [18]:
"YouTube doesn't allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO)."
The modern adage of "Google it" is only any use if you want to know what the State approved truth is. If you want to know what the actual truth is you need to be creative with your search operators, use different search engines and sources, and cross reference the information. Something most people, leading busy lives, are unlikely to do. Thus "Googling" their information during the pseudopandemic told them practically nothing beyond reaffirming the belief system required of them.
Facebook updated their community guidelines [19] to ensure users on their Facebook and Instagram platforms were directed to the official truth. For example, anyone who shared or liked a post which linked to a peer reviewed study investigating natural herd immunity had their thinking corrected for them by Facebook. They proudly announced:
"We’ve now directed over 2 billion people to resources from the WHO and other health authorities through our COVID-19 Information Center.....We’re going to start showing messages in News Feed to people who have liked, reacted or commented on harmful misinformation about COVID-19....These messages will connect people to COVID-19 myths debunked by the WHO."
Harmful misinformation was thus defined as anything which questioned the unscientific pronouncements of the WHO. Twitter, who declared their intention to reframe users minds if they ever questioned vaccines [20], provided perhaps the most succinct description of how the core conspirators were able to control online information. Wedged firmly inside the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP), Twitter stated [21]:
"Experts, NGOs, and governments play a pivotal public service role, using Twitter to reach people with the right information when they need it. We’re committed to playing our part to amplify authoritative, official content across the globe."
As far as the social media giants were concerned, the WHO, with their conveniently changed definitions, poorly evidenced assertions and a history of scientific and public health fraud, were the leading arbiters of the truth. Evidence only existed if the WHO approved it.
No matter how much evidence supported a qualified opinion, unless the WHO sanctioned it, it was memory holed. Along with everything else that didn't fit with the pseudopandemic agenda.
This is the power of compartmentalised authority. It was not necessary for many thousands of co-conspirators to collaborate for the pseudopandemic to proceed. Our unquestioning acceptance of authority sufficed. The core conspirators reach extended into our minds. The
billions who got the bulk of their information from social media could be corralled into online communities, sharing sources with the like-minded, reinforcing each others opinions within walls defined for them by the GPPP.
Those engaged in the brainwashing weren't necessarily aware of the deception or in agreement with it. It wasn't essential for the algorithm programmers and the fact checking researchers, the online monitors and the decision making panels to be actively intent upon promoting disinformation. All that was required was their belief in authority.
While the people accepted that others had the right to define truth for them, and while populations considered some experts to outrank others, then dividing us into information silos, pitting us against each other, creating identity groups and guiding our minds toward acceptance of the official pseudopandemic truth, couldn't have been easier for the core conspirators.
One of the WHO's official truths [22] was that "studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19." Technically this was correct. Some studies did show no clinical benefit. The WHO's claimed fact was also disinformation by omission.
Chloroquine, and its analogue Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), were known to inhibit the spread of viral SARS [23] in cell cultures. When COVID 19 supposedly broke out in Wuhan it was an obvious drug treatment for Chinese researchers to trial.
By the 4th February 2020 chloroquine was showing promising initial results [24]. Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology stated:
“Our findings reveal that....chloroquine [is] highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record.....we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease.”
By February 19th 2020 Chinese researchers from Qingdao University had published clinical trial results [25]. They provided the references to the controlled clinical trial data sets, making them available to the global scientific community. Singling out chloroquine, they reported: