Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

  The Belgian Flu Commissioner Dr Marc van Ranst spoke to the gathered stakeholders about how to use the MSM to get your pandemic narrative out. The conference listened attentively to his presentation, which he delivered with great humour drawing plenty of laughs. Dr van Ranst said:

  "In day one you start your communication with the press, with the people.. You have to go for one voice, one message. In Belgium they chose.. a non politician to do that [Dr van Ranst].. this makes things a little bit easier because you’re not attacked politically....and that was a huge advantage, the second advantage....you can play...the complete naive guy.

  You have to be omnipresent.. so that you attract the media attention.. You make an agreement with them that you will tell them all.. if they call, you will pick up the phone.. if you do that you can profit from these early days and get complete carpet coverage.. and they're not going to search for alternative voices.. the news is brought the way that you bring it.

  Then you say that we are going to have [H1N1] deaths, of course that is completely unavoidable.. I used that in the media.. 7 deaths per day at the peak of the epidemic would be realistic.. That is true in every year.. [crowd laughs].. However, talking about fatalities is very important because, when you say it, people say Wow! You mean people die from influenza?.. and then of course, a couple of days later, you had the first H1N1 deaths.. and the scene was set and it was already talked about.

  I went to the first couple of funerals. You have to be very quiet, sit in the back, um, but, but, it, it, it shows that you care.. and I think that was, at that time, quite important.. then everything is set about the pandemic.

  The crux of the campaign was the vaccination campaign.. Then you had to pick who is going to be vaccinated first.. I misused the fact that the.. top.. football.. clubs in Belgium.. made their soccer players priority people. So I said, I can use that.. because, if the population really believes this vaccine is so desirable that even the soccer players would be dishonest to get their vaccine.. OK.. I can play with that. So I made a big fuss about this.. it worked.

  The 2009 pandemic arrived.. this was a good exercise for a big pandemic."

  Until the pseudopandemic, the MSM had never before reported a daily, running tally of mortality from any other terminal disease. If every death from causes, such as heart disease, flu or cancer were incessantly reported in the national media, it is likely the public would perceive them as "pandemics."

  The only people who had any hope of being properly informed were those who followed the so-called alternative media. This is currently the only place to find real news media. This is how the term "news media" is used for the remainder of our exploration of the pseudopandemic. The MSM are the "alternative."

  All of us must exercise critical thinking skills [13] whenever we consume information. While the news media outlets were the only ones fulfilling the vital social function of questioning power [14], as a whole they are plagued with just as many trashy, click-bait merchants as the MSM. Notwithstanding, the best among the news media maintained the highest standards of journalism, something the MSM largely abandoned decades ago.

  The news media are distinct from the MSM in a couple of important regards. It is almost entirely funded by its readership and audience. The MSM is funded by advertising or directly through taxation. In the UK this is deceptively called a "license fee." For the commercial UK MSM the State franchise is now their biggest client by far. The MSM is State funded and has been for some time [15].

  The MSM are far more likely to use phrases like "according to experts," "a study suggests" or a "a source said." By contrast, the news media consistently directs its audience and readers to the cited expert opinion, scientific evidence, statistical data and sources, wherever possible.

  It is extremely common for the news media to report news events months in advance of the MSM. For example, in April and May 2020, the news media outlet the UK Column reported the evidence [16] showing how State franchise behavioural scientists had used the MSM to increase the public's fear of the pseudopandemic. They provided their readers and viewers with links to the evidence revealed in their report.

  It wasn't until January 2021 that the MSM made any mention of the same facts [17]. This certainly wasn't widely reported and they did not provide any public access to the relevant documents. The MSM insist that you trust whatever they report, the best among the news media actively encourage critical thinking.

  A favoured tactic of the MSM throughout the pseudopandemic was to pejoratively "label" dissenting voices. They would call them "conspiracy theorists," "quacks" or "anti-vaxxers." These labels are psychological linguistic devices implying a whole raft of assumptions. They are used to dissuade the reader, viewers and listeners from considering the evidence provided by the "labelled" source.

  For the core conspirators of the pseudopandemic the news media presented a small, though irksome irritant. However, they identified the potential of the growing threat from the news media some time ago. They have been hastily constructing a global censorship grid ever since.

  The belief, held by so many, that we have a free press in our western representative democracies is naive. We have a centrally controlled GPPP information system, designed to define our world-view for us. Reuters, AP and AFP, CNN and the BBC perform exactly the same role as Russia's Tass or the Xinhua News Agency in China.

  Our perceptions are formed and our opinions shaped by the creation of MSM news reports and the deliberate omission of vital information. During the pseudopandemic this MSM propaganda machine was omnipresent.

  A few years ago, the State recognised that a small segment of the population were starting to look to the news media on the Internet and were becoming increasingly sceptical of the MSM. The State franchise decided to act [18].

  In his 2014 speech to the U.N General Assembly then UK Prime Minister David Cameron said [19]:

  "We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism. We must work together to take down illegal online material…………we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance....Some will argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry....we shouldn’t stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism.”

  Cameron couched his speech in terms of fighting Islamist terrorism [20]. However, with his phrase "non-violent-extremists" he was attempting to define a new concept. The idea that the existing legal restrictions placed upon free speech [21] were insufficient to deal with a new, very broadly defined form of threat. That threat was information itself.

  Cameron suggested that any who questioned the State's official truth were tantamount to terrorists [22]. Calling for online censorship to stop any questions ever being asked, it is this authoritarian need to avoid discussing evidence that led his successor, then UK Prime Minister Theresa May, to propose wide-sweeping censorship of the Internet [23].

  Just like Cameron's deceptive rhetoric, the Online Harms legislation [24] was presented under the guise of addressing perfectly legitimate concerns. The UK State franchise claimed it was intended to tackle the online abuse of children and terrorist activity.

  Yet the focus of the proposed Online Harms legislation was on stopping the sharing of information, entirely unrelated to combating either child abuse or terrorism. The White Paper, published in December 2019, made this clear.

  "Online platforms.. can be used to undermine our democratic values and debate.. There is also a real danger that hostile actors use online disinformation to undermine our democratic values and principles."

  "The spread of inaccurate anti-vaccination messaging online poses a risk to public health. The government is particularly worried about disinformation."

  "Disinformation threatens these values and principles, and can threaten public safety, undermine national security, fracture community cohesion and reduce trust.”

  "These concerns have been well set ou
t in the wide-ranging inquiry led by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee report on fake news and disinformation, published on 18 February 2019."

  The UK State franchise is certainly not alone in this concern about trust in its institutions being undermined. The EU established it's External Action Service [25] (EAS) in 2015 to combat disinformation and they too were very worried about people asking questions about COVID 19.

  While continuing to develop legislation aimed at shutting down free speech and the free and open sharing of information, the EU has created new bodies like The European Digital Media Observatory [26], to coordinate its social media "fact checking" operations.

  As David Cameron pointed out, "this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry." It is antithetical to our way of life and is utterly opposed to the values that supposedly underpin our representative democracies. While censorship of legitimate opinion is repugnant in a free and open society, that is no longer of any concern to our rulers. All that matters to the GPPP is control of information and they will do anything to fully regain it.

  Ironically The word "disinformation," relatively new to the western lexicon, stems from the Russian word [27] "dezinformatsiya." The highest ranking Soviet defector ever was the Romanian Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa. In his book called Disinformation, Pacepa noted that it was possible to spot dezinformatsiya by the lack of cited sources provided in the reporting.

  Broadcast media in the UK is regulated by Ofcom [28] and they have been selected as the State Franchise regulators for the forthcoming Online Safety Act [29] (currently at the bill stage.) They imposed fines and publicly censured broadcasters [30] who questioned the State franchise's approved pseudopandemic messaging.

  In their coronavirus guidance [31] to broadcasters, Ofcom spelled out the MSM's duty to parrot, and never question, the State's policies:

  "We remind all broadcasters of the significant potential harm that can be caused by material relating to the Coronavirus.....We strongly advise you to take particular care when broadcasting....statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies on the Coronavirus, or otherwise undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources of information about the disease.....Such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice....Ofcom will consider any breach arising from harmful Coronavirus-related programming to be potentially serious and will consider taking appropriate regulatory action, which could include the imposition of a statutory sanction."

  This attempt to formulate an inviolable official pseudopandemic truth drew a potential legal challenge [32] from lawyers and journalists who formed the Free Speech Union (FSU.) The FSU argued that Ofcom's guidance would effectively stop the MSM questioning the official health advice or mainstream sources.

  High Court judge Mr Justice Fordham denied the FSU's application [33] for a judicial review. In his ruling he said there was “no realistic prospect” of a judge ruling that Ofcom guidance could be “impugned.” UK courts are part of the UK State franchise and so this legal observation was accurate. There is virtually no chance of the State franchise ever ruling against any of its GPPP partners. With their role as regulators for the coming Online Harms Act [34] Ofcom is set to be the Ministry of Truth [35] in the UK.

  The Chief Executive of the Ofcom board is a former State Treasury and Cabinet Office Director General. Other board members include a former BBC news Controller, a former Director of the Treasury and a policy think tank Chairman, all with extensive ties to the GPPP.

  For example, Ofcom’s CEO is a trustee of the Patchwork Foundation [36] whose stated mission is to create a "new era of democracy." Patchwork's partnerships are numerous. They are supported by credit agencies, government, investment banks and all the major UK political parties. Ofcom's board makes its rulings based upon the advice of its Content Board [37]. Of its 19 members 14 worked for the BBC.

  In addition to the £3.6 billion the BBC received from license fee payers in 2019 [38] (a reduction of £170 million on the previous year's total) they also received £1.4 billion from "other sources." A £200 million annual increase which more than offset their license fee losses.

  A fair slice of that other income came from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Over the last decade or so they have given the BBC [39] approximately $79 million (£58 million).

  The BMGF have been staunch financial supporters of the MSM [40] For example, the BMGF are partners with The Guardian in their global development [41] project which was established in 2010 to promote Millenium Development Goals (MDG's) and now sells the idea of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's). The Guardian is by no means alone in taking philanthropic money. It benefits from a global network [42] of philanthropic MSM financial supporters who fund many mainstream news outlets [43].

  Ofcom's rule over MSM broadcasters exemplifies how the core conspirators within the GPPP were able to exploit centralised authority, combined with compartmentalisation, to control public opinion. Despite its farcical claim to be independent, Ofcom is deeply embedded within the GPPP.

  Working in partnership with the State franchise, it determined UK audience’s access to information during the pseudopandemic. That so many in the UK still imagine they have an independent MSM, capable of questioning power, is a remarkable achievement by the propagandists. The scale of the deception is phenomenal.

  In their COVID misinformation guide [44], Ofcom decreed what subjects were off limits for the MSM during the pseudopandemic. According to Ofcom, who have no scientific or medical expertise of note, certain subjects were considered "misinformation." Among the banned topics was any questioning of face-masks. The media were ordered to instruct people [45] to wear them. Consequently, the MSM insisted their use was justified and even tried to market them as fashion accessories [46]. Questioning this approved truth was verboten.

  Other topics Ofcom deemed unspeakable included any notion that non ionising electromagnetic radiation [47] might cause COVID 19 symptoms, questioning if SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID 19 or any suggestion that case rates and deaths were being exaggerated. None of this had anything to do with evidence, science, health, logic or even reason. It was based upon nothing but a commitment to maintain the pseudopandemic narrative.

  Pseudopandemic facts were whatever the State franchise said they were. Criticism of the State's ostensibly insane response to COVID 19 was forbidden by the State franchise media regulator. The purpose of the MSM broadcasters was to maintain and encourage public trust in State institutions. All who openly doubted the pseudopandemic were to be silenced.

  Questions could be asked, as long as they supported the pseudopandemic narrative. The endless criticism of the lack of PPE utilised a technique called Appeal To Fear Propaganda [48]. While appearing critical of State "failures," the underlying message was that the country faced some sort of unparalleled risk from disease, which was false. This propaganda not only promoted unwarranted fear, it had the added advantage of serving as a rebuttal to anyone who accused the MSM of failing to question power.

  The UK MSM print media is regulated by the fully independent IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organisation). They are independently funded by the GPPP corporate giants who own the MSM and partner with UK State franchise.

  IPSO's Chairman is a Conservative Party peer and their board have members drawn from the pharmaceutical industry, Ofcom, the BBC and Reuters [49]. Yet another example of a far reaching GPPP network regulating the media. However IPSO are independent because they have the word "independent" in their name.

  You would imagine that leading MSM journalists would be fiercely opposed to this kind of State censorship and rally behind their fellow professionals, no matter what their opinion. A small minority certainly did but, unbelievably, many more were extremely supportive [50] of the idea of a State controlled media.

  For some, this appeared to be firmly rooted in the
ir unshakeable faith in their own intellectual superiority. This meant that they, or bodies that they approved of, were the only people clever enough to determine the truth.

  However, despite their pretensions of genius, apparently they couldn't recognise the contradictions in their own rationale. For example, one wrote:

  "Any control by governments of what we may say is dangerous, especially when the government, like ours, has authoritarian tendencies.. I would like to see an expert committee, similar to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), identifying claims that present a genuine danger to life and proposing their temporary prohibition to parliament."

  SAGE are appointed by the State franchise [51]. In all likelihood the journalist in question was simply promoting the State's censorship agenda or perhaps he was just dimwitted.

  When criticism of the pseudopandemic made it into MSM print, IPSO's task was to remove it. An article published in the Telegraph, highlighting the evidence of established herd immunity [52], suggested that lockdowns did nothing to alter infection rates. Published in the 11th of July 2020, it remained online for a number of months until the winter of 2020. At that point a complaint from one individual was submitted to IPSO and they ordered the Telegraph to remove the article [53].

  IPSO don’t have any scientists either on their board or on the complaints committee [54] who judge the "legitimacy" of journalism. They ruled that the article was "inaccurate, misleading or distorted information" and gave their detailed appraisal of the prevailing "scientific consensus" as described to them by State franchise approved scientists.

  Central to their decision to uphold the complaint was the vital importance they placed upon the articles failure to clarify what "natural immunity" meant. IPSO decided that the journalist had not informed his readers that his use of the phrase "natural immunity" referred to T-Cell immunity. IPSO's complaints committee decided that T-Cell immunity did not "amount" to immunity and only reduced the chances of someone becoming ill with COVID 19. Therefore this was not "natural immunity" as described by the Telegraph.