Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

  They also highlighted how the private sector, especially marketing corporations like Omnicom (OmniGOV), were "particularly adept at making things more attractive." Other marketing techniques they suggested including the use of fake "scarcity." They highlighted that people are more likely to be attracted to something if they believe supplies are limited.

  Despite the hundreds of millions of vaccines pre-ordered by the UK State franchise we were deluged with MSM stories about vaccine scarcity [4]. We were shown messages in flashing lights and bombarded with accessible and simple slogans like "flatten the curve," "hands, face, space," and "build back better." Losses were accentuated and gains ignored.

  For example, the UK State franchise still does not report COVID 19 recovery rates. The rationale given [5] for not informing the public was that the modelling used to calculate it was complex. Presumably the modelling upon which the entire pseudopandemic was based wasn't complex. The real reason recovery rates weren't reported was to frame identical information in terms of losses not gains in order to manipulate our automatic behavioural response.

  The UK mainstream media (MSM) is directly funded by the UK State franchise [6] and is paid to run propaganda campaigns through the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) media buy ins. Manning Gottlieb OMD (MGOMD) ran the OmniGOV operations [7] which used the MSM to deliver hard hitting messaging to prime our emotional response. This shifted our focus of attention away from facts and information.

  In March 2020, less than two weeks after the WHO's declaration of the global pandemic, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B) outlined how we should be primed [8]. They stipulated the behavioural change techniques to illicit the required behavioural response. The aim was to manipulate us into obeying without question. Spi-B advised that the State franchise should:

  Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of personal threat.

  Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of responsibility to others.

  Use social disapproval for failure to comply.

  A free, plural and independent media could not be “used” to terrorise people. Only a controlled MSM propaganda machine could possibly be instructed to do this.

  In September 2019, one of the world's most powerful propaganda organisations, the BBC, convened the Trusted News Summit [9]. This took advantage of the Chatham House rule and, according to then BBC Director General Tony Hall [10], the meeting was held "behind closed doors." The BBC formed a global media alliance with The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, the Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, The Wall Street Journal (News Corp), AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft, Reuters and Twitter.

  They agreed to collaborate and to take collective action against whatever they decided to label as disinformation. They also committed to disseminating official truth on command. Claiming information was a threat to people's lives and that outright censorship was a democratic principle, they decided to move quickly to undermine any information they wished to censor. They were especially eager to have fast and responsive information control. They formed a global rapid response Trusted News cartel.

  The prevailing myth, still imagined by so many, that western democracy is in part built upon a free and independent media gives the MSM unwarranted credibility. The trust they demand from the public is designed to reinforce the credibility of their stakeholder message. Sadly, many still freely give their allegiance, abandoning critical thought in favour of faith in trusted sources. This leaves them wide open to suggestion and renders the western MSM the perfect vehicle for large scale behaviour change psy-ops like the pseudopandemic.

  Spi-B advised the State franchise how to capitalise upon that "trust." In order to minimise non compliance they suggested using social disapproval propagated by the MSM. People were primed with emotional cues to believe their own failure to comply would pose a threat to their safety. Not only would they be in danger themselves, others would disapprove of their actions, shaming the non-complaint (complacent) for their failure to uphold the public good. 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.”

  The GPPP's Trusted News cartel worked in partnership with GPPP State franchise to ensure our "emotional responses to words, images and events" were "rapid and automatic." We were primed to accept our transition to a biosecurity state, without realising it.

  The WHO's Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is their behavioural insights team [11]. The WHO announced the formation of their behavioural change unit [12] one month prior to declaring the pseudopandemic. Speaking in August 2020 the WHO Director General said [13]:

  "In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines.. That’s why behavioral science is so important. It helps us to understand how people make decisions, so we can support them to make the best decisions."

  Within weeks of establishing TAG the WHO had not only evaluated all the metrics of the claimed infodemic, they had formulated a policy response, financed and completed the necessary research and, in April 2020, published a recommended global strategy called Managing the COVID - 19 Infodemic [14].

  The WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) suddenly emerged to "form the basis for a COVID-19 infodemic framework" which would guide the actions that governments and public health institutions should take. EPI-WIN would track and monitor information online and work with social media "amplifiers" to address "myths" and disseminate "trusted information." The objective was to:

  "Amplify the right public health messages in ways that.. can lead to the right changes in behaviour.. Computational social science approaches offer a way to define and quantify the socio-behavioural dimensions of the infodemic, monitoring both the emotional and the cognitive domains."

  Their first priority was to disseminate trusted information and translate that into actionable behaviour change. This would be delivered through strategic partnerships with social media and technology platforms and other stakeholders. TAG was empowered to "guide" these global psy-ops.

  The members of the TAG [15] include Dr Cass Sunstein, former advisor to Barrack Obama and more recently appointed to the Department of Homeland Security by Joe Biden; Dr Varun Gauri, the founder and co-head of the World Bank's behavioural science unit and a member of the World Economic Forum Council on Behaviour; Dr Maria Augusta Carrasco, a former Behavioural Science Consultant to the World Bank; the Deputy Director for Communications at the Indian Office of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Ms Archna Vyas and Susan Michie, senior consultant to the Spi-B team [16] who recommended the UK State franchise use the MSM to increase the level of fear and create social division.

  In her Spi-B role Michie works alongside Dr David Halpern. He was the co-author of MINDSPACE and the Chief Analysist for the Cabinet Office's Prime Ministers Strategy Unit under former Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He was also the co-founder of The Behavioural Insights Team and led their transition into the private sector.

  In 2018 Public Health England [17] acknowledged the claim that climate change was "the greatest public health threat of our time." Therefore it is no surprise that Sir Patrick Valance, the UK's Chief Scientific officer throughout the pseudopandemic, whose background is in the pharmaceutical industry and public health policy, was appointed as the Scientific Advisor [18] to 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26).

  Given the claimed critical need to remodel the global financial and economic order to save the planet, making UK MP Alok Sharma COP26 President [19] also made sense. As a former corporate risk assessor for Deloitte and investment banker, he was ideally suited to preside over a climate ch
ange conference.

  The merging of climate change with public health was formalised when the UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock announced the creation of the UK Health Security Agency [20] (UKHSA). The State franchise claimed that the pseudopandemic had highlighted their need to maintain a "relentless focus on our health security." The Health Secretary stated [21]:

  "I want everybody at UKHSA, at all levels, to wake up every day with a zeal to plan for the next pandemic."

  While pandemics usually come around every 100 years or so the pseudopandemic has changed that reality. Pandemics, in various forms, are now a permanent fixtures as we all relentlessly focus upon our collective health security.

  UKHSA takes over the function of Public Health England, NHS Test and Trace and will oversee the Joint Biosecurity Centre. Under its authority practically everything becomes a potential public health threat. Announcing the formation of UKHSA, the UK State franchise declared:

  "The threats we face in future will be different; from new infectious diseases, new environmental threats or biohazards, to new behavioural challenges. So too will the opportunities to do more about them, through use of new technologies, analytics, cutting edge science and personalised behavioural approaches."

  If we exhibit the wrong behaviour (behavioural challenges) we will become clear and present biohazards. UKHSA consider us to be the threat they are preparing to combat. However, it isn't just protecting the green economy and defending the public good from bio-terror which demand our behaviour change:

  "The factors most critical to good physical and mental health such as work, education and transport, housing and air quality.. means that transforming public health requires very different ways of working across government.. Health will no longer only be the business of the DHSC, but a core priority for the whole of government... We will enable more joined-up, sustained action by national and local government and our partners."

  The work we do, the official truth we are taught, the transport we use, the homes we live in and even the air we breathe have been transformed into core public health priorities. Every aspect of our lives has become the business of the GPPP's State franchise in response to the pseudopandemic.

  In order to tackle the emerging health threats relating to our jobs, education, freedom of movement, housing, respiration and the environment (climate change,) UKHSA must work with its partners. These are "citizens, communities and industry:" civil society and the GPPP are UKHSA's stakeholder partners.

  UKHSA rebranded the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP,) formed only a few months earlier. The NIHP, and thus UKHSA, was created in partnership with their GPPP stakeholder partner McKinsey [22] and other private interests. McKinsey, who are World Economic Forum partners, are a global consultancy firm who assist public and private organisation to "make change that matters." They state that they are able to look beyond coronavirus to help agencies like UKHSA "walk the path to the next normal." They add:

  "The coronavirus is not only a health crisis of immense proportion—it’s also an imminent restructuring of the global economic order."

  Working with communitarian civil society and their corporate stakeholder partners, via UKHSA, the State franchise will:

  "Harness the power of technology and innovation for public health, investing in critical capabilities in data science, digital, behavioural science, and genomics.. We need to consider how best to engage with citizens and drive behaviour change in the 21st century."

  UKHSA will "work with academia and industry to provide effective preparation and response to the full range of threats." It will also be a "key part of the country’s critical national infrastructure and security infrastructure" and it will "be close to policy making and able to exert influence over the system to ensure threats to health security are acted on and brought under control."

  UKHSA will also detect diseases and "new environmental hazards," responding rapidly to new threats. However, these threats won't necessarily exist for UKHSA to respond to them at "pace and scale." They could be threats that might exist at some point in the future.

  Through "world class health surveillance, joined-up data, horizon scanning and early warning systems" UKHSA is yet another all powerful GPPP institution which claims the power of prospicience. It says it is capable of:

  "Anticipating and taking action to mitigate infectious diseases and other hazards to health before they materialise, for example through vaccination and influencing behaviour."

  The pseudopandemic itself was based upon the farcical predictive computer models of Imperial College. Similarly, the threat of climate change, which is "the greatest public health threat of our time," is also based upon models and predictions of future disasters.

  Now, under the all seeing eye of UKHSA, we are being asked to change our behaviour, our economy and our entire social and political structure. This is based upon their prediction of threats which they claim will harm us if we don't do as they command. Another State franchise agency which appears to be operating a protection racket.

  Speaking to the Houses of Parliament on May 17th, the Health Secretary Matt Hancock said [23]:

  “I can report to the House that there are now fewer than 1,000 people in hospital in the United Kingdom with coronavirus, and the average number of daily deaths is now nine.. There are now 2,323 confirmed cases of B1617.2 in the UK; 483 of these cases have been seen in Bolton and Blackburn.. In Bolton and Blackburn.. we have surged in our rapid response team.. who visited approximately 35,000 people this weekend to distribute and collect tests... this is the biggest surge of resources into any specific local area that we have seen during the pandemic so far. It has been co-ordinated by.. the new UK Health Security Agency.. The next biggest case of concern is Bedford, where we are surging testing. I urge everybody in Bedford to exercise caution and engage in testing where it is available... All this supports our overriding strategy, which is gradually and cautiously to replace the restrictions on freedom with the protections from the vaccines. The data suggests that the vaccine has already saved more than 12,000 lives and prevented more than 33,000 people from being hospitalised."

  Hancock alleged that this was because the State franchise had "a very good surveillance operation across the UK." The data he used to suggest the number of lives saved by the vaccine was modelling of the most absurd kind by Public Health England. We will cover this shortly.

  The B1617.2 Variant of Concern (VoC) was initially called the Indian variant and later renamed the Delta Variant. This VoC was surging wherever the UKHSA's rapid response team were focusing their testing regime. Having surged in Bolton and Blackburn they were next moving on to surge in Bedford which had been designated as the next hotspot.

  It is unknown how the UKHSA could possibly make such a precise distinction between these VoC. On the 14th May 2021, the reliable source Nature reported that researchers were still trying to sequence the B.1.617 variant genome. A speculative PCR test had only just been developed [24]. Yet speaking just 5 days later in the UK, The Health Secretary Matt Hancock reported that UKHSA had been surging in B.1.617 VoC hotpots for weeks.

  This was all based upon tests which, even if they were calibrated to a new VoC, were both incapable of diagnosing anything and highly prone to false positives. The data from these dubious PCR based guesses were analysed by another State franchise's stakeholder partner. GlaxoSmithKline's WellcomeSanger Institute [25] genomic research laboratory, named in honour of racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, were telling UKHSA where to surge.

  The "variant" claims used the standard pseudopandemic operating procedure. They were based upon dubious science which then informed equally specious computer models producing nonsensical predictions. This was good enough to extend the lockdowns in the Summer of 2021 [26]. Unsurprisingly it was Imperial College London (ICL) who first came up with the speculative computer simulation which launched the VoC story.

  They alleged the B.1.1.7 VoC had rapidly spread to the US [27] and Europe, meaning c
ontinuing biosecurity measures for everybody, everywhere. They claimed B.1.1.7 was a "global lineage variant" and there were supposedly a number of other potential strains that sprang from it. Amid all the panic, few seemed to notice that there wasn't any evidence that these scary VoC's presented any additional threat.

  The ICL team were led by close associate of Neil Ferguson, Prof. Erik Volz. Backing up his friend and colleague Ferguson said [28]:

  "We can still get a very large epidemic, which unfortunately could kill many, many people, so what the modelling and all the analysis and all the groups feeding into SAGE says is, we need to be very cautious in how we relax restrictions and try to ensure we get as high a vaccine coverage as possible. We couldn't have predicted this new variant coming up, but the new variant without doubt will make the relaxation of restrictions more difficult because it is substantially more transmissible......So it will be a gradual process to the autumn."

  The UK State franchise were able use ICL's fantasy to announce another round of lockdowns [29]. Firmly sticking to the favoured pseudopandemic tactic of calling tests "cases," the R number could be adjusted as required, using the new variant models.

  The new strain of B.1.1.7 that Volz, Ferguson, ICL and SAGE (NERVTAG) considered a VoC, was named N501Y. They claimed it presented 70% increased transmission risk. This was based upon a comparison made between models for N501Y and another strain A222V. Just as they did after releasing Report 9, the ICL team immediately started backpedaling [30] on their assertions. Speaking to the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium about how these models worked, Volz said:

  "[The] model fit is not particularly good.....there are lots of outliers early on and there are lots of outliers quite late.....we wouldn’t expect that a logistical growth model is necessarily appropriate in this case.”