COV!D Has Not Changed Anything
But the response to COV!D has changed everything!
COV!D has lifted the lid on what has been cooking for decades.
I smile sardonically every time I read a headline that contains “due to COV!D ...”
Regardless of your view on whether SARS-CoV-2 exists or not, or whether it was or was not made in a lab, or how many cases of what is called COV!D is caused by a specific virus, or is associated with that virus or is diagnosed as COV!D with or without confirmation of a virus, the “only” (and it is a big “only”) thing that changed compared to any previous potential pandemic is the response to COV!D. Compared to the potential pandemics of SARS, H1N1, Bird flu, and so on the momentum of fear was finally achieved this time.
The response snowballed into irrational fear to seasonal disease. The media piled on and so did health care and so did the government (with a few notable, vilified examples who were treating patients successfully) all urging everybody to panic and not seek treatment until you were too sick to breathe instead of seeking early treatment. Patients were actually told to go home and wait until they got sick enough. WHO came up with that plan?
And for once it caught fire - worldwide. Almost like it was planned, even though we all know that is ridiculous. (Event 201)
I believe it will take some time to finally separate the complete truth from the hype but as time goes by, more and more is shown to have been hype. For two years now, we've been living under the illusion that the pandemic was far worse than it actually was. Now, even the CDC is admitting it as they remove thousands of deaths from their tally. Why were deaths exaggerated? Why are they now suddenly being downplayed and removed? On March 14, 2022, the CDC removed 72,277 COVID deaths, including 24% of those attributed to children under 18.1 The claim - a “coding logic error.” A faulty algorithm, had “accidentally” counted deaths such as drowning deaths and drug overdoses as COV!D. I guess counting them accurately was not important before now. Surely those at fault will be dealt with.
Wasn’t it odd when calls for a vaccine to end the “pandemic” were made at virtually the same time as the declaration of the “pandemic” in March 2020? I and many others immediately became suspicious. Knowing that vaccines typically take 10 years to develop, a vaccine seemed plausible for a management vector in the futre but irrelevant as a remedy to a current disease.
Even the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, had reservations about the technology to be employed for the Pfizer product, since it had never been used at Pfizer for any previous product. Why would it be selected as the technology to bet a ll the marbles on for a novel product needed at “warp speed” ?
In this short clip from a recent interview, Bourla explains that he thought it was irrational to pick mRNA as the route taken to develop a shot until he heard the pitch. So why was it the route taken? I wonder what the pitch was that compelled him to go along? CEO’s are not known for making potentially career ending decisions. Perhaps that was not a worry for some reason?
Albert Bourla on why mRNA technology was "counterintuitive" to producing an effective vaccine
Bourla confirms that mRNA was a technology that “had never delivered a single product” for Pfizer. So it must be the obvious choice in an emergency situation, right? Maybe in a movie, but not in real life. I find it hard to believe Bourla can make the statement he does in this interview and keep a straight face. I have a good reason for that from my life experience.
It’s not rocket science but it should have been.
I knew a rocket scientist. He worked at NASA during the race to the moon in the 1960’s. In a conversation I had with him in 2015, he said something that impressed me. This time period was a heyday of invention. Many cutting edge technologies were researched and developed for the moon shot in the 60’s because we were doing something that had never been done before. For each technology decision it came down to a choice between using existing tried and true technology or go with potential new, untried, unproven technology requiring tons of research and testing with a high risk of failure. Of course, when there was no old technology available, the new technology was the only choice, in spite of the time and money needed.
But when it came to core features that could not tolerate failure, tried and true, time-tested technology won most of the time. Timely success of the project depended on it because there was only so much time and money available for research and development and still remain on time within acceptable safety margins. The expectation was for a man to go to the moon and come back before the end of the decade.
Place your bet with chips or core?
One example my friend gave was the Apollo onboard computer. Integrated circuits (IC) and transistors were available at the time and had the backing of many for the onboard computer because of the potential computing power to weight ratio and the low electrical consumption. However, the reliability of an IC in the stressful environment of rocket travel involving vibration, radiation, acceleration and the vacuum of space was unknown. Researching and developing IC based computers would involve much more time than was available with unknown reliability.
Computers with magnetic core memory were decades old with solid reliability profiles and had already ben tested in the Gemini program. The existing core technology was chosen for the computer. The computer was essential to the mission and could not be subject to the risks of new untested technology.
The old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” As Gene Krantz would famously say when some other components on Apollo 13 did malfunction, “Failure is not an option.” The reliability of the onboard computer was critical to the success of that mission and everybody was glad the computer did not become another point of failure.
Bourla does not appear to be related to Krantz.
If you wanted to develop a product in a time of crisis and failure is not an option, why would you choose a technology where your company has little experience, no successful products and damn the consequences? I and many others asked that question many times as we watched the madness going on in real time.
What was going on in real time
DEEP DIVE INTO THE COVID VACCINE TRIAL August 1st, 2020
Curious about how the #Covid19 vaccine trials are going? Well, turn on your brain and join us as The HighWire looks inside the Lancet’s latest study on Astra Zeneca’s vaccine being tested at Oxford University. We dug into the study data for this product planned to be injected into the entire world at “warp speed,” and the numbers are shocking. (WARNING: if you only like to read headlines or other people’s opinions about science, this segment is not for you.)
THE COVID VACCINE’S DIRTY SECRET August 21st, 2020
While Big Pharma races to get a #Covid19 vaccine on the market, prominent vaccine experts can’t help but raise red flags surrounding a well-known, but hushed, side effect that has already proven to be a serious problem in SARS vaccines. Sit down for an important lesson in immune enhancement with Dr. “Neu.”
What were the persuasive arguments?
What I would really like to know are the arguments that were used to persuade the CEO to use unfamiliar, unproven technology in an emergency situation. Did the arguments promote the advantage of the technology in spite of the risks or or were the arguments about how failure could be managed? There is no obvious advantage for why mRNA was chosen, so I looked around for possible explanations that might fit.
The longer the shot madness goes on and the longer Big Pharma and the government keep doubling, tripling and quadrupling down as failure continues and accelerates, the more I believe I have an idea what might have been pitched to convince CEO Bourla. Everyone knew the chance of hitting it out of the park on the first try with a new technology were one in a million so I believe the pitch had to be about the mitigation plan for failure. There was already a lot in favor of the drug makers when it came to getting a pass on failures.
First, drug companies that make shots have virtually no liability. Dead people can’t sue and even shot injured people cannot sue if the product is under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). Structure your contract well and you can eliminate any additional nagging liability. With no liability to worry about, even if the shots should cause more harm than expected, the bottom line will remain profitable. Pfizer is already known for this business model and survived previous occasions when they did get held liable (largest criminal fine in U. S. history).
Second, drug companies have fear on their side. If fear of the unknown can be kept high and unknown, people will be more afraid of not taking the shot than taking it. After all, we have been conditioned to trust shots all of our lives. What could go wrong? With media, government and health care all in lock step with the fear porn, and actively spending a billion dollars in promotion and cutting no corners, this was was a shoe-in. And we were promised no short cuts would be taken as a 10 year process was condensed down to 6 months. What could go wrong?
An experience I had in the past about fear-based decisions
Back in the 1980’s I had the privilege of serving on a Federal Grand Jury. One of the cases brought to us involved people who had been defrauded of their valid tax refunds by a tax firm each hired to figure and file their income tax. The problem was the tax firm filed with the IRS but had the tax refunds sent to the tax firm — and they illegally kept the refunds.
It was an open and shut case with irrefutable evidence. The tax firm was guilty of the crime. It only had one problem. At least one of the people stolen from had to testify in court against them. Many people had $15,000 to $20,000 refunds stolen from them by this tax firm. Some had filed over multiple years and had been stolen from 4 or 5 years in a row, which was mind blowing in itself. This is a no-brainer, right?
I did mention the IRS was involved? I found out that people fear the IRS more than they fear financial loss, even when they were innocent of any personal wrongdoing. The tax firm was the criminal.
It turns out this case went nowhere because no one would testify in court. The tax firm clearly committed the crime, not the defendants. The tax firm stole large sums of money stolen from each defendant. No defendant was guilty of any wrong doing. But the fear each defendant had of the IRS somehow blaming the defendant was greater than the fear of losing the money. The Grand Jury returned a true bill (the case could go to trial) but the case was never tried because no one would testify.
You cannot prove a negative
If anyone understands how to use fear, it is big Pharma. Fear is used over and over by drug companies to coerce people into taking questionable products because if you don’t take them you might get worse or even die. Mr. Global and Big Pharma counted on this fear tactic to work as they kept rolling out the shots, and rolling, and rolling ….
Apparently, they were right. Enough people feared getting a temporary illness more than they feared the consequences of shutting down the world with lock downs or the risk of getting an experimental shot. I know people who could not wait to get in line for a shot. They did not care what was in the shot as long as they felt they could do something to alleviate the fear. I cannot really blame them. I may have been one of them if I had not become aware of certain things several years back and followed the clinical trials in 2020 as they transpired (the links earlier in this post). I am not judging any one who thought it was the right thing to do to get the shot. Your trust in the system was used against you. But now you can recognize that and move forward.
It was fear that created this response, not COV!D, not a pandemic. Fear and trust in professionals that were previously trustworthy.
What do we do now?
It appears there are those who are happy to see the fear response and prepared to take advantage of it. A good crisis was not allowed to go to waste.
So the world has definitely changed but not because of COV!D. It was because of the fear propagated and manipulated around COV!D. The response to COV!D. People sold their freedom for a bowl of shots even when people continue to “get COV!D” in spite of the shots — or is it because of the shots? But that is another post.
If you were deceived or coerced, it is time to stop while there is freedom left to save.
We can’t go back to the beginning but we still have opportunity to turn the ship in the direction we want it to go. Let’s snatch this opportunity from the jaws of the perpetrators. Instead of waiting to be told what the next step is, we can take the initiative and choose the path we take. One that leads away from fear and into freedom and opportunity. Now the landscape has been cleared and we can see what is important, what matters.
Robert Malone - How does it feel to be vindicated?
I have witnessed Robert’s transformation since the first interview he had on Bret Weinstein’s The Dark Horse podcast and it has been truly remarkable. Thank you, Robert for painfully standing for the truth once it was revealed to you. It would have been so “easy” to have stayed in the system and seared your conscience.
Here is a key paragraph to whet your appetite if you choose to read his substack, which I highly recommend. This post is one of the best I have ever seen.
From Robert’s substack
The biomedical world that I thought I was living in has been revealed to be a sham. The legitimacy of the industry and discipline that I have committed my entire professional life to is in shambles. I am now embarrassed to call myself a vaccines and biodefense expert, because the fundamental corruption inherent in those domains has been so clearly revealed. I cannot unsee what I have seen. I cannot recapture all of those years spent in a profoundly corrupt academic system, spent supporting a deeply compromised discipline which appears primarily driven by financial interests rather than by what I had naively believed was a commitment to saving lives. I chose to not pursue the careers of my father and father in law, which were spent building weapons of war. Only to find that I had inadvertently played a significant role in enabling one of the most tragic medical follies in the history of man.
...
I now have a very different worldview than I had two years ago. I have no regrets.
Action
My worldview, like Robert’s, is very different from 2 to 3 years ago but in different ways. The core of my worldview concerning God, creation, and salvation remain unchanged but my understanding of how that affects my life and those around me has changed. My understanding of health and how to stay healthy has changed. My understanding of relationships and how they are used by God has changed. My understanding of lovingly but unabashedly standing for the truth with actions, not just words, has changed.
With our new understanding we can usurp “The Great Reset” and turn it into “The Great Awakening” and this time it can spread to every country in the world, not just America. We may not have plowed this field but we can sow seeds of light now that it is prepared and choke out the seeds of darkness. Each of us needs to become a weapon of mass instruction broadcasting the truth far and wide.
We can lead the charge. God will take care of it.
The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord;
He turns it wherever He pleases.
Proverbs 21:1
A few resources to facilitate change
David Martin site for creating new infrastructure
Activate Humanity
New Health System
Freedom Med
Time To Free America
No Jab Jobs
https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/18/cdc-data-kids-pediatric-covid-coronavirus-deaths/