Click here to watch it on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v1xaz08-fool-me-once.html
Please share the link with your friends, one-on-one, and in the nicest way possible. Thanks for watching!
[0:08] The purpose of this video is to share important information that’s well documented but not widely known. But awareness of this information is crucial to understanding what’s going on in the world today and the Covid-19 crisis in particular.
First, some information about September 11th, 2001, that you may not be aware of: Specifically, how many skyscrapers collapsed in New York City on 9/11? Most people would say two – the twin towers – but in fact, there were three. In addition to World Trade Center buildings One and Two (the twin towers), WTC 7 also collapsed that day. Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper, over 600 feet tall, and it was not hit by an airplane. Why is that significant? Because prior to 9/11, no steel-framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. This is openly acknowledged by FEMA and other agencies and is not disputed.
In every case of this type of building fire, no matter how long the fire burned or how severe the damage, the steel skeleton of the building remained standing after the fire finally burned out. Yet on September 11th, all three skyscrapers collapsed entirely – something that’s normally accomplished only with the help of explosives in controlled demolitions, such as when an old structure needs to be removed to make way for a newer building. In fact, as people watched the events of 9/11 unfold on that day, many assumed that explosives must have been involved.
[2:00 news commentary on presumed use of explosives] ***
[2:31] As the official story of hijackers with box cutters emerged, some people were skeptical, and many theorized that there was more to the story than the official narrative. Eventually – more than a year after the attacks and under strong pressure from some of the victims’ family members – President Bush signed a bill establishing a commission whose job it would be to examine and report on the facts surrounding 9/11. Disappointingly, however, the vast majority of pertinent documents were classified and withheld – even from the commissioners themselves.
[3:07 9/11 commissioner Max Cleland says White House withheld most documents] ***
[4:29] Cleland resigned from the commission, calling it a national scandal. His accusations are further bolstered when we learn that author and staff member Ernest May and executive director Philip Zelikow prepared the outline for the report before the commission started the investigation. May is very candid about this. In an article he wrote entitled, “When Government Writes History: the 9/11 Commission Report,” he explains:
“My job was to help produce the historical narrative… After Zelikow agreed to become executive director and I signed on as a consultant, he and I worked up an outline for a sixteen-chapter report. By the middle of March 2003, the outline had chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings… Most of the staff tended to assume that the commission would produce a report of the traditional type; they had to be educated to the idea of writing a narrative… Everyone became a storyteller.”
May was pleased with the final report, calling it “riveting.” The New Republic magazine described it as “novelistically intense.”
[5:43] The Commission was made up of thirteen commissioners and 75 staff members. While we might have expected those staff members to be scientists, physicists, or forensic investigators, the group was largely comprised of foreign policy advisors, public relations experts, and dozens of lawyers. So for any technical information, the Commission relied on an agency called NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[6:12] After three years of work, NIST’s official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers was that jet fuel had caused the fires to burn so hot that the steel was weakened, and that the weakened steel in the vicinity of the fire caused entire floors to fail simultaneously and fall – meeting almost no resistance from the intact floors below and somehow causing the entire 1300-foot-tall building to crumble to the ground in less than eleven seconds.
[6:43] NIST investigators literally explained that they “did not analyze the collapse of the towers” but only the events leading up to the collapse; that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”; and that their “computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.” Of course, allowing for the possibility of explosive charges would have provided a full explanation of that kind of collapse and would have allowed the computer models to “converge on a solution,” but NIST dismissed that possibility in favor of a theory that does not sufficiently account for the collapse.
Which brings us back to Building 7. As noted earlier, Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, so this collapse could not be blamed on jet fuel. Yet, incredibly, just as with the twin towers investigation, NIST adamantly maintained that there were no explosives involved in the collapse of World Trade 7 and that it had been brought down by ordinary office fires – even though, again, no skyscraper in history had ever collapsed because of fire.
[7:51 – NIST video explaining that the “fire-induced” collapse of WTC 7 was a “new phenomenon”]
[8:45] The issue of explosives was addressed briefly in a press conference held at the conclusion of their investigation.
[8:53 – NIST director says they “did not find any evidence that explosives were used”] ***
[9:03] While that statement appears to lay the subject to rest, during the Question and Answer period afterwards, a reporter cited a the letter from NIST, where they clearly state that in fact NIST never actually checked for explosives. Obviously this explains why NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used.” Incidentally, another NIST representative, Michael Newman, was contacted by a journalist with what she felt were some valid questions raised by the skeptics. Here’s part of their exchange:
Newman: We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives.
Journalist: But what about that letter witness said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
Newman: Right, because there was no evidence of that.
Journalist: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
Newman: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time and the taxpayers money.
In answering another question about explosives during a press conference Q&A, Director Sunder added that the collapse of WTC 7 really didn’t look like a controlled demolition.
[10:38 – side-by-side comparison of WTC 7 collapse with acknowledged controlled demolitions] ***
[10:45] Not only did the collapse have all the appearance of a controlled demolition, but the entire area at Ground Zero certainly looked as if bombs had gone off – before and after the collapse of World Trade 7. This is footage of the world trade center plaza after the collapse of the twin towers but before the collapse of Building 7, which would take place later that afternoon.
To be clear, this is not to say that bombs were the definitive cause of that damage, but surely destruction of that scale warrants an investigation into the possibility. Firefighter Eric Lawyer explains that it is not only customary but mandatory, in any fire investigation where pulverized concrete is present, to try to determine whether explosives were used.
[11:59 – Eric Lawyer explains that basic protocols for fire investigation were not followed] ***
[13:14] When another reporter asked how NIST was able to dismiss the controlled demolition hypothesis so easily, Director Sunder claimed that there were no witness reports describing sounds loud enough to justify that hypothesis.
[13:28 – Shyam Sunder says “incredibly loud sound” not reported; explosion report montage] ***
[16:49] NIST’s collapse theory is not just implausible but historically unprecedented; their animated computer simulation doesn’t resemble the real life collapse; and they can’t account for either the total collapse or the speed at which the building fell, among other things. It would be very interesting to see the data they used in their computer model, but, unfortunately, NIST refuses to release that data, explaining that doing so could “jeopardize public safety.”
It looked like bombs went off. Many witnesses said it sounded like bombs went off. And explosives would account for the collapse speeds and be a credible explanation for all of the collapse characteristics. Yet that entire hypothesis is off the table.
[17:37 – Eric Lawyer questions NIST’s decision not to test for explosives] ***
[17:56] So why was NIST so reluctant to check for evidence of explosives? When asked about this, Sunder explained that, in his judgment, the likelihood that a sufficient amount of charges could have been placed ahead of time was very low.
[18:12 – Sunder judges it “unlikely” that someone could have gotten enough explosives into the building; Eric Lawyer points out that if something was hard to do, that’s all the more reason to investigate, in order to find out how it was done.] ***
[19:22] What’s even less reasonable is rejecting an “unlikely” explanation in favor of a “new phenomenon” – something that’s never happened in the history of skyscrapers. Part of the answer to why NIST refused to consider the use of explosives is that the investigation itself began with certain fundamental assumptions built into it, despite claims to the contrary.
[19:46 – Shyam Sunder claims to have conducted their study with no bias or preconceptions] ***
Yet, in spite of this rhetoric, Sunder himself makes it very plain that they actually began their investigation assuming that the building structure was somehow flawed and that their main goal was to find out why it failed in order to make improvements to structural building codes.
[20:14 – Shyam Sunder says only goal was to improve building codes, standards, and practices] ***
[20:32] The truth is that the entire investigation was heavily biased from the outset. In fact, the very congressional act that put NIST in charge of evaluating the collapses in the first place never called for any forensic or criminal investigation. Instead, the goal was predetermined and stated very clearly in the act: “The purpose of investigations by the NIST teams is to improve the safety and structural integrity of buildings in the United States.”
With this narrow mandate, it’s no wonder they weren’t open to the possibility of preplanted explosives or other criminal acts. The real question, then, is why NIST was chosen for this job in the first place, since they are, by their own description, a measurement agency.
[21:22 – NIST video clips explaining that measurements are important to innovation] ***
[21:43] So instead of exploring legitimate possibilities, including the use of explosives, and looking carefully at things like the money trail, the motives, and the beneficiaries of perhaps the largest crime in US history, the decision was made at the highest levels of government to turn over a key part of the 9/11 investigation to a self-described measurement agency.
Finally, in regards to the 9/11 Commission and their 600-page “riveting” story known as The 9/11 Commission Report, there is not a single mention of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Not only is this absurd but it strongly fortifies commissioner Max Cleland’s assertion from years earlier that the administration never wanted a real investigation at all and that the entire thing was a complete whitewash from the beginning. With this possibility in mind, the more important question becomes: Why would a government participate in a crime – or at least the cover up of a crime – against its own citizens?
[22:53] A false flag operation is an event carried out by one group, but made to look as though it was committed by a different group. False flag attacks have often been used as pretexts for war between nations. For instance, Operation Himmler was a series of German false flag attacks designed to make it appear that Poland had been attacking Germany, while the events were actually orchestrated by the Germans. On August 31st, 1939, several Germans put on Polish military uniforms and attacked a German radio station. The next day, Hitler used the supposed radio station attack and other false flag incidents to justify his invasion of Poland, marking the beginning of World War II.
[23:41] In the early 1960s, U.S. government officials wanted to replace Cuba’s communist prime minister, Fidel Castro, with someone more sympathetic to U.S. interests. So they launched Operation Mongoose, a series of attempts to turn the Cuban people against Castro, or, failing that, to remove him militarily. Since Americans at that time would have objected to military action against a country that had not attacked us, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked for suggestions on how to generate support for such an attack. The Joint Chiefs presented their list of recommendations, known as Operation Northwoods. Although President Kennedy did not sign off on this particular operation, it is extremely disturbing to see what the top military leaders of our country were willing to do to fool Americans into supporting a war with Cuba.
[24:33] According to the now declassified document, the goal was “to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace.” To convince the world that Castro and his supporters were violent and unhinged, a series of incidents would be planned and then blamed on hostile Cuban forces.
[25:01] One idea was to make it look as if Castro’s troops were attacking the American base in Cuba by sending friendly Cubans in uniform – in other words, Cubans helping with the deception – to stage an attack on the base, and even capturing the supposed attackers. Some of their other ideas were to have friendly Cubans start riots near the base; burn US aircraft; sabotage an American ship in the harbor and set fires; sink a ship near the harbor entrance and even conduct funerals for mock victims.
[25:37] We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay, they suggested, and blame Cuba. We could blow up a drone vessel, follow up with “rescue operations,” and then “evacuate” remaining members of the nonexistent crew. Publishing fake lists of casualties in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida, injure Cuban refugees, and set off plastic bombs, and then release fictitious documents placing the blame on the Cuban government.
[26:14] They even recommended fake airplane hijackings and an elaborate plan involving a civilian aircraft and a duplicate, remote-controlled drone. Military personnel posing as travelers would fly out of Florida to a destination such as Jamaica. While out of radar range, the passenger plane would be replaced with the drone, which would then be blown up by remote control. Any neighboring countries who heard the mayday signal would believe that Cuba had shot down a civilian plane and report it that way, unknowingly participating in the deception.
[26:51] A related plan was to make it appear that communist Cuban planes had destroyed a US Air Force plane in an unprovoked attack. Several US planes would be sent to conduct exercises a few miles off the coast of Cuba. The last plane in the line would fly far behind the others and then broadcast a distress signal that he was being shot at by Cuban MIGs. He would then secretly fly off to a secure location, and various airplane parts would be dispersed in the water where the pilot had supposedly been shot down. The other pilots and any search ships finding the supposed wreckage would have a true story, as far as they knew, and would not have to be in on the deception.
[27:34] Clearly, our top military leaders were not above conducting deceptive, abhorrent, and even deadly operations in order to trick the American public into supporting policies they would normally oppose. In the same way, 9/11 was used as a means to ensure and expand U.S. dominance on the world stage, as well as to increase the size and scope of government here at home.
In the spring of 1997, a Washington, DC, think tank was established, called The Project for the New American Century. Their goal was to promote American global leadership, and members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others who would later hold key positions in the Bush presidency. A year before the September 11th attacks, they produced a report warning that the US needed to increase spending on new military technology in order to protect American global interests. They lamented that we weren’t as motivated as we used to be: “Without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation have lacked urgency.”
The US was already spending more on defense than the next ten highest-spending countries combined, so the authors were aware that transitioning to even costlier technologies would be a slow process – unless something happened to speed it along. “The process of transformation,” they wrote, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
During the Bush presidency, the US defense budget more than doubled, increasing from $320 billion to over $650 billion in just eight years. So-called “nation building” began in earnest, for which plans had been laid in advance, as General Wesley Clark explains.
[29:33 – Wesley Clark; George Bush callously jokes about never having found the elusive WMDs] ***
[31:38] Not only did US military presence increase in the middle east and other key parts of the globe, but US citizens saw expansive and unconstitutional growth of their federal government with the passage of the Patriot Act, which, as the ACLU puts it, “vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens, while…reducing…judicial oversight…and the ability to challenge government searches in court,” among many other things. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security introduced a host of oppressive and unconstitutional policies, including the Terror Watch List, through which innocent citizens are frequently harassed, detained, and interrogated without cause.
[32:23 – Terror Watch List and No Fly List] ***
[33:15] Other breaches of our basic freedoms include the collection of our personal data without a warrant and, of course, the creation of the TSA [Transportation Security Administration]. Under the specter of radical unhinged terrorists attacking without warning, the government was able to stoke fear in the public and persuade them to give up their most fundamental rights.
[33:38] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Many people quietly agreed to the suspension of their God-given and constitutionally protected rights, believing that the alleged emergency situation would be temporary. But granting the government more power during an emergency is a surefire way of guaranteeing that there will always be an emergency.
[33:51] “‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” ― Friedrich A. Hayek
In fact, the state of emergency declared by President Bush after the September 11th attacks has been renewed by every president every single year for the last 20 years. Those who have grown up in our post-9/11 world have no idea that airlines were supposed to be privately operated; that water bottles are not weapons; that warrantless TSA searches are not just uncomfortable or inconvenient, but strictly prohibited by our Constitution. Yet, over two decades after 9/11, millions have been conditioned to see the growing government as necessary for the supposed safety they believe is provided by arbitrary searches, seizures of belongings, and so-called pat downs that in any other setting would legally qualify as a form of sexual assault.
Even children are offered up – against every parental instinct – to be inappropriately touched by strangers in uniform as a condition of air travel. This would have been unthinkable prior to 9/11. Yet all of this conditioning was made possible by an event that was never investigated and was completely misrepresented to a terrorized public.
The best reason to learn about past deceptions is to recognize them now and avoid them in the future. With this in mind, we would be wise to take a more critical look at the Covid-19 crisis to see what we’re being conditioned to put up with today that would have been unacceptable just a few years ago.
[35:44] This is a PCR machine. It’s the machine that analyzes the infamous nasal swab samples collected from millions of people throughout the Covid crisis and has been used to diagnose Covid-19. So it may surprise you to learn that PCR was never intended to be a yes-or-no diagnostic test for Covid-19 or any other disease. When someone is actually sick, PCR can provide useful clues as to what might be causing the illness, but it cannot be used to reliably diagnose disease.
Dr. Kary Mullis won a Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process, but he was dismayed to find that results from the tests were often misinterpreted as proof of disease. The late doctor was often at great pains to teach people that PCR was able to detect even a single molecule of whatever you’re looking for.
[36:38 – Dr. Kary Mullis on PCR] ***
[37:09] According to the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, the PCR test is so sensitive, it can detect fragments of virus even though you’re not sick or contagious. So you may test positive even though you aren’t ill and can’t spread illness to others.
So how does PCR work? It’s a complicated process, but here are the basics with regard to viruses: Most viruses are submicroscopic, meaning they are too tiny to be seen even with an ordinary microscope. So looking for viral particles in a sample of mucus is like looking for the proverbial needle in a gigantic haystack. But when supplied with the genetic code for a specific virus, the PCR machine will identify that specific virus in a mucus sample and then duplicate it. It will then repeat the process, duplicating over and over until there is enough viral material to be detected. Each duplication phase is called a cycle. The less virus in the original sample, the more cycles that must be run before there is enough virus to be detected. If you run enough cycles, you can detect virus even if there was only a tiny, insignificant amount in the original sample.
[38:25 – PCR explanation] ***
[39:12] So the essential information that PCR provides is the number of cycles that had to be run before the test turned positive. The higher the number of cycles, the less virus that was in the swab sample, and the less likely a person is to be ill or contagious. As this New York Times article from 2020 points out, “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold value, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.”
Many scientists were shocked that the cycle threshold values were not being provided, since the test results are literally meaningless without them. It’s also important to note that PCR cannot distinguish between active virus and dead virus fragments. The more cycles it has to run, the less likely that whole active virus is present in any significant degree, and the more likely that harmless fragments have been dredged up by the PCR process.
So how many cycles should be run before a person is considered negative? What should the cutoff be? The CDC’s own data suggests that replication-competent virus is rarely detected in thresholds above 33 cycles. Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, believes 30 is the maximum number of cycles to run and that if the virus isn’t detectable at that point, the person should be considered negative for Covid-19. Others believe an even lower number is sufficient. Even Dr. Fauci explained that, in his opinion, if more than 34 duplications are required, it means that there was an insignificant amount of virus in the sample and that the person is not sick or contagious.
[41:08 – Dr. Fauci says at 34 cycles “…it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”] ***
[41:27] Shockingly, the CDC has recommended a cycle threshold of 40 – far above even Dr. Fauci’s limit of 34 cycles. The New York State lab analyzed numbers from July of 2020 and found that, of the supposedly positive PCR tests, only 37% would have been considered positive if the cycle threshold had been set at 30. In Massachusetts during the same time, only ten to 15% of people who tested positive would have been deemed positive at 30 cycles.
What does this mean? Using a threshold of 40 cycles means that many, many people have been deemed positive and potentially contagious who never had enough virus to be ill or to spread it to anyone else. This is why healthy people can have a PCR test that comes back positive. When this happens, they are often told that they are positive but “asymptomatic” and may even be quarantined, even though they are healthy and can’t spread illness.
[42:33 – Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, Fauci say asymptomatic transmission is very rare.] ***
[43:42] Yet despite these acknowledgments, PCR continued to be used to incorrectly diagnose hundreds of millions of people.
Importantly, this isn’t the first time that PCR results have been wildly misinterpreted. In 2007, Dr. Brooke Herndon at Dartmouth Medical Center had a very persistent cough. An infectious disease specialist at the hospital began to wonder if it could be whooping cough. So Dr. Herndon and hundreds of other hospital workers were screened for whooping cough using the PCR test. 142 of those people were deemed positive, and thousands who had supposedly been exposed to the disease were given antibiotics and vaccinated. At some point, they began culturing some samples, and – eight months into the pseudo-epidemic – it turned out there were no cases of whooping cough. The workers had had ordinary colds.
Dr. Trish Pearl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, says that pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. “We know it’s a problem,” she said. “My guess is that what happened at Dartmouth is going to become more common.”
The article notes that when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, false positives can make it seem like there’s an epidemic. What about when hundreds of millions are tested in every country around the globe? Well, that can make it seem like there’s a pandemic.
How can this be? Don’t our most prominent health authorities know how the PCR test works? Dr. Fauci certainly does.
[45:23 – Fauci says PCR can detect dead, inactive virus] ***
[46:14] Actually, the only confusing part is why the test continues to be used in this fraudulent way. Even while acknowledging the limitations of the PCR test and recognizing that the CDC’s recommended cycle threshold of 40 was producing huge numbers of false positives, Dr. Fauci and most health agencies around the world continued to recommend that even completely healthy people get tested – repeatedly and even regularly.
[46:43 – Fauci anticipates conducting half a billion tests per month] ***
[47:26] Not only were so-called “confirmed” cases based on inappropriate use of PCR, as we’ve already seen, but early in 2020, the CDC guidelines for counting cases were even changed to include “probable” cases, for which an extremely loose definition was created.
This chart was presented by the Collin County, Texas, epidemiology department spokesperson, as she explained how cases would now be counted. Before April 2020, a person with a positive PCR test would have been counted as one case. But with the CDC’s new revised case definition, a single case of Covid-19 could be recorded as 17 cases – or even more – and all of these would be included in official totals. The 16 probable cases shown in this example include the person’s family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and even coworkers of neighbors – none of whom are tested specifically for Covid-19 and some of whom have no symptoms at all. Even a coworker’s family are all counted, even if they’re healthy, as long as they test positive on what’s called an antibody test, a test which cannot distinguish between a current infection and something you had months earlier.
Not only are antibody tests unable to tell the difference between current and past infection, but this type of test also cannot distinguish between Covid-19 and the common cold.
[49:00 – Dr. David Persse on antibody tests] ***
[49:29] Another commonly used diagnostic tool is the rapid antigen test. While an antigen test can be helpful in diagnosing specific illness in patients who are actually sick, it cannot accurately detect virus in a healthy person.
[49:45 – news report on antigen tests] ***
[50:56] With the inaccuracy of some tests and the misuse of PCR both contributing to artificially high case numbers, the CDC’s decision to count probable cases was particularly disturbing. Some Collin County leaders feared that inflating the numbers to include probable cases would be interpreted by the public as an increase in actual illness.
[51:20 – news report on “revised” case definition; BBC report blames “cases” on business reopenings] ***
[52:20] The report makes absolutely no mention of the new case-counting scheme but promotes the idea that there was a spike in Texas cases, laying the blame for the supposed spike on the reopening of businesses, just as Commissioner Hale predicted, falsely leading the public to believe that opening businesses had increased the spread of illness. This experience in Texas was highlighted because they were one of the first states to reopen businesses after the initial Covid scare, but these changes were all based on CDC guidelines and were issued to all states.
An obvious problem with grouping people who have symptoms common to both Covid-19 and seasonal flu together in the Covid case counts is that people who actually do have the flu will be miscategorized as Covid cases instead of flu cases. And, as you might expect, flu diagnosis did decline – by about 95%. Some media outlets actually reported that the flu had somehow been nearly eradicated. Some epidemiologists were striving to expose the misleading practice of classifying flu cases as Covid but were given little media attention. Meanwhile, during January and February of 2021, UK health authorities reported zero flu cases – but over a million Covid cases.
Everything that’s happened – the damaging lockdowns; the mask requirements for healthy people; the depressive isolation; the care center neglect; the deaths of despair; the suicides; the destruction of businesses and livelihoods; cruel restrictions on visits to the sick, the lonely, and the elderly; even limits on funeral attendance – all of it – has been based almost entirely on completely meaningless PCR tests that paved the way for gross exaggerations of case counts and, incredibly, even death counts.
[54:28] Losing a loved one is a terribly distressing experience, and raising questions about the cause of death can compound the pain. Unfortunately, inaccurate inflated reports on Covid-19 fatalities have circulated from the very beginning, and this must be addressed. By the beginning of April 2020, the governors of 43 states had issued stay-at-home orders in response to the reported pandemic. At that time, the reported number of Covid deaths per million people in the US was twelve. Twelve deaths per million people. And this was very typical; most countries were reporting similar or even lower numbers. In fact, of the over 180 nations reporting Covid-19 deaths, only two were reporting numbers that might raise concern: Spain and Italy. The obvious question should have been, “What’s going on in Spain and Italy?”
A careful look at this Telegraph article from March 2020 quickly clears up the mystery of Italy’s unusually high Covid numbers. Among the various theories presented was this valuable nugget: “Italy’s death rate may also appear high because of how doctors record fatalities.” How doctors record fatalities? Professor Walter Riccardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s Minister of Health, elaborates on that puzzling phrase: “The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous, in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus. On reevaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus.”
Most of us understand that a viral illness can exacerbate an existing health problem and turn a bad condition into a fatal one. But we also realize that this is not new to Covid-19. A cold or flu can likewise be a trigger for serious illness – and even death – in elderly or sickly patients. What was new is using a different method to code deaths than other countries were using – a “generous” method, as Professor Ricardi put it – and this is an important distinction as we put the numbers in context. Taking Professor Riccardi at his word that only 12% of recorded Covid-19 deaths were directly attributable to Covid-19 illness would bring Italy’s April 2020 death rates completely in line with those of the rest of the world.
Angelo Borelli, the head of Italy’s Civil Protection Service, repeatedly emphasized that fatality numbers included those who died with the coronavirus as well as those who died because of it.
[57:25 – Borelli on counting method] ***
[57:39] Unfortunately, such caveats were no match for nonstop sensational media headlines. And, just as with probable cases, the same broad subjective criteria were used to determine probable deaths. No Covid-19 specific test was required, and no symptoms were necessary in determining Covid-19 as the cause of death. As US death numbers began to climb to seemingly alarming levels, we again learned that, as former CDC director and White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx explained, the US had also adopted the same liberal counting methods.
[58:20 – Birx on “liberal” counting of Covid deaths] ***
[58:33] Some believe that Covid-19 should be listed as the cause of death, since a viral infection can fatally exacerbate things like heart disease or diabetes. The problem is that such infections were typically not listed as the cause of death prior to the Covid crisis, so encouraging doctors to do so now has made Covid appear much more deadly than it has been. According to this Los Angeles Times article, doctors have typically listed heart disease or other chronic conditions as the cause of death, instead of viruses or other infections that preceded the death. This is in line with the guidebook produced by the CDC in 2003, which gives the example of a man suffering from heart disease and diabetes, who died from pneumonia. The book instructs doctors to select either heart disease or diabetes – not the pneumonia infection – as the underlying cause of death. Of course, changing those guidelines now makes it impossible to compare current numbers with those from previous years.
Additionally, the new CDC guidelines have been taken to extremes all over the country. For example, many people saw the scandalous news report about a Florida man who died in a motorcycle crash being counted as a Covid death, but few realized that, in fact, this was not an isolated incident but official policy for many state and county health departments.
[1:00:01] Oregon Health Authority spokesman Jonathan Modie explained that if someone with a recent positive Covid test was subsequently hospitalized for any reason, and then passed away even two months after going home from the hospital, that person’s death would be counted as a Covid-19 death. Regarding a hypothetical case of someone who had tested positive for Covid and then died in a motorcycle crash, Modie confirmed that that death would be counted as a Covid-19 fatality.
[1:00:34] Los Angeles County public health officials said that their tally of Covid deaths would include any person who died from a heart attack, stroke, or other ailment if they had tested positive for coronavirus within the last three months.
[1:00:50 Rebecca Sunenshine on Maricopa County Arizona counting methods] ***
[1:01:13] Another spokesperson for Maricopa County [AZ] specified that anyone with a positive PCR test who died up to two months later would be considered a Covid death. A journalist from ABC News asked Maricopa County health officials whether they would count someone who died in a car crash as a Covid death if the person had had a positive test up to two months earlier. They confirmed that the car crash victim would be counted as a Covid-19 fatality.
[1:01:42] This news report highlights fraudulent classification of Colorado deaths.
[1:01:47 – Colorado death counting methods] ***
[1:02:36] Even more shocking, in April 2020, New York City actually reclassified thousands of previous deaths as Covid-19 – weeks or even months after the deaths occurred and absent any testing or evidence of Covid infection. These extra 3,778 “probable” Covid deaths appeared as a spike in New York fatalities and raised the national total by 17%.
Fatality rates have been greatly exaggerated from the very beginning and throughout the alleged Covid-19 crisis, leading people all over the world to accept a slew of unwarranted and unconstitutional policy measures that have proven to be physically, mentally, and economically devastating.
There were certainly pockets of severe outbreaks, and in some of those areas with high infection rates, hospitals and health care workers were taxed to their limits. Houston’s chief Medical Officer Dr. David Persse explains that this burden on hospitals is not new to Covid-19 and that every year, some areas experience a localized surge of sick patients. In fact, it’s not uncommon for hospitals to routinely operate at or near capacity, so in areas with high infection rates, patients must sometimes be diverted to other facilities as capacities on beds and resources are exceeded.
[1:04:10 – Dr. David Persse on typical hospital occupancy] ***
[1:04:29] During the 2018 flu season, this California hospital set up an outdoor triage tent to handle the huge influx of patients in their area. Without widespread media coverage, most people were not even aware that 2018 was the most deadly flu season in recent history. During 2020, on the other hand, major news outlets routinely featured false numbers and skewed statistics. Running tallies of exaggerated cases and deaths were the biggest draw for viewers, as CNN technical director Charlie Chester candidly explains.
[1:05:08 – Charlie Chester of CNN on effect of Covid on news ratings] ***
[1:05:23] Largely because of these news reports, some people were so fearful of getting Covid that they refused to go to the hospital – even for emergencies.
[1:05:33 – emergency room visits down] ***
[1:06:47] Local government and health advisers were also influenced by media fearmongering and ordered hospitals to postpone elective surgeries and procedures to make room for a possible surge of Covid-19 patients. As doctors at the Johns Hopkins Medical Center explain, the elective procedures that were being postponed were not necessarily optional or unimportant. Non-emergency procedures can include cancer surgery, knee or hip replacements, and even heart stents. Patients in need of care were put off for weeks or months, not because hospitals were overwhelmed with Covid patients, but because they were afraid they might be. The vast majority of hospitals never experienced an overwhelming surge of Covid-19, and, in fact, many reported lower than average volumes of patients.
[1:07:44 – hospital visits not overwhelmed with Covid patients] ***
[1:08:42] Yet non-Covid patients in need of care continued to be turned away.
[1:08:48 – transplant surgeries cancelled] ***
[1:09:11] Dr. Gaurav Puri said it was eerie to walk through the emergency room at his hospital in Ontario, Canada, and see so many empty beds. “All of our rooms are empty. They’re not even staffing it with nurses because there [are] no patients.”
In many hospitals across the US and in other countries, thousands of beds went unoccupied, even as essential procedures were canceled by the tens of thousands. According to Ontario Canada’s Minister of Health, dozens of heart patients died while waiting for their surgeries to be rescheduled.
With elective procedures canceled and absent the anticipated volume of Covid patients, staff at many hospitals all over the country were underutilized, their time, training, and skills being squandered, even as people who desperately needed care were turned away. Instead of simply opening the doors for elective procedures and returning to their full care capacity, hospitals actually furloughed nurses and staff by the thousands, as they complied with bureaucratic decrees to cancel surgeries and postponed procedures. One Cincinnati nurse expected that her skills would be greatly needed but was shocked to be taken off the schedule, never imagining that she would be sitting at home during a “pandemic.”
Rich Lowry highlights these destructive policies in this National Review article: “At a time when we feared that hospitals would get overwhelmed by a surge of patients, they have instead been emptied out, and medical personnel are instead being idled all over the country.”
In March of 2020, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed an order postponing elective surgeries to make room for patients diagnosed with Covid-19, prompting this hospital in Abilene, Texas, to furlough some of its staff. Yet, as Jeffrey Tucker [editorial director for the American Institute for Economic Research] points out, at the time of Governor Abbott’s order, there were only nine people hospitalized with Covid in the entire city of Abilene. “Most of the sick people,” he writes, “are ‘self-isolating,’ or what we used to call staying home in bed.”
Hospitals that were now losing millions of dollars in revenue were reimbursed to some extent with taxpayer dollars through the CARES Act and other rescue programs. However, most of the federal aid was earmarked for expenses related to Covid-19, so struggling hospitals found themselves financially incentivized to diagnose and treat for Covid. Patients admitted to the hospital were routinely tested for Covid, even if they were symptom-free and had come in for unrelated treatment – even for something like a broken bone. And, just as with case counts and death counts, anyone with a positive Covid test could be counted as a Covid hospitalization.
[1:12:09 – Fauci and Walensky say non-Covid patients are counted as Covid hospitalizations] ***
[1:12:54] Credentialed doctors and others who pointed out the lunacy of counting appendicitis patients as Covid hospitalizations or of purposely emptying hospitals and then laying off nurses saw their social media posts flagged or deleted, and often had their accounts suspended entirely. Information about PCR tests and case counting fraud was also squelched. News outlets and social media corporations worked in lockstep to prevent this information from becoming widely known. To better understand how and why this was accomplished, we need to take a critical look at something called Event 201.
[1:13:36] While it may sound like something from a sensational tabloid headline, influential world leaders really did meet in October of 2019 – a couple of months before the first Covid case was diagnosed – to simulate a worldwide coronavirus pandemic. The exercise was called Event 201, and organizers included the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. According to Johns Hopkins, “Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people…leading to a severe pandemic… The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS.”
The simulation included mock news reports and panel discussions on how to impose measures such as travel restrictions, business shutdowns, and internet censorship.
[1:14:33 – mock news report on need for social media censorship] ***
[1:15:09] The “players” selected for the role-playing scenario were prominent leaders from business and government, representing powerful entities, including the United Nations; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; global vaccine and pharmaceutical companies; multinational media corporation NBCUniversal; US national intelligence and CIA; and others with similar global influence. Players discussed business shutdowns, travel bans, government bailouts, information censorship, and other responses that were implemented all over the world when the pandemic was declared just a few months later.
Plans were made to squelch dissenting opinions about the pandemic by promoting mainstream news stories that supported the predetermined narrative and censoring opposing views and data, labeling it “misinformation.”
[1:16:04 – Event 201 players discuss how to control information] ***
[1:17:05] Seeking information from alternative news sources was discouraged and ridiculed. Hundreds of highly credentialed doctors and other experts were silenced, just as envisioned at the Event 201 exercise, so that information could be moderated and then selectively presented to the public by news agencies that are neither independent nor trustworthy.
[1:17:30] In 2019, after a number of US troops were withdrawn from Syria, ABC News immediately ran a story about a Turkish attack on the now “vulnerable” Syria.
[1:17:43 – ABC News Report on “Slaughter in Syria”] ***
[1:17:50] Except that footage of Syria was actually a gun show…in Kentucky. Researcher James Corbett explains.
[1:18:00 – James Corbett on routine use of fake news footage] ***
[1:21:27] BBC News, one of the largest broadcasters in the world, produced this report in October of 2020 on alleged Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. Evidence for the supposed attacks included footage from an Airsoft BB gun game.
[1:21:45 – BBC shows Airsoft BB gun footage] ***
[1:22:29] This is so ridiculous that it might even be funny, if it weren’t for the massive influence these corporate news stories have on public opinion and the power they wield to rally support for national policies that would otherwise be rejected.
Many people understandably assume that each media outlet employs its own independent fact-finding journalists, tirelessly digging up novel information to report to the public. So they are often surprised to learn that nearly every major media company is owned by one of a shockingly small number of mega-conglomerates, leading to a disturbing uniformity of content. While the following segment from Late Night with Conan O’Brien is presented comedically, the deeper implications of individual news stations marching in such lockstep should raise some concerns.
[1:23:20 Conan O’Brien shows “mockingbird media” footage] ***
[1:25:07] The following compilation is even more chilling, especially since the very subject of this scripted warbling is, ironically, a warning against taking news stories at face value without any thought or scrutiny.
[1:25:21 – “Dangerous to Our Democracy” media puppets] ***
[1:27:00] Similarly, many so-called “independent” fact-checking websites belong to a globally influential body called the International Fact-checking Network. Pronouncements by these self-proclaimed arbiters of truth can be very misleading – particularly if we only read the brief summary provided or cast a superficial glance at the true/false badge at the top of the page. Very often, simply reading through the article will reveal bias on the part of the fact checker or discrepancies within the article itself.
For instance, this article supposedly debunking the idea of a vaccine that leaves an invisible dye that can then be used as a digital vaccine certificate shows that this is, in fact, something that’s being considered. A micro-needle patch delivers the vaccine, along with invisible dye that can then be used to keep track of vaccination status, raising privacy concerns over this invisible “medical tattoo.” The article notes that Bill Gates openly envisions digital vaccine certificates, and has been funding research on micro-needle quantum dye technology since at least 2019.
The bottom line is that simply reading the headline of the so-called “fact-check” article would be extremely misleading, to say the least.
This Snopes article supposedly addresses the question of whether Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a highly credentialed Canadian physician, called the Covid pandemic a “hoax.” The simple answer would have been “Yes.”
[1:28:33 – Dr. Roger Hodkinson calls Covid pandemic a “hoax”] ***
[1:29:27] But instead of simply labeling the claim true, the Snopes writers largely ignore the original question and spend the bulk of the article debunking the claim that Hodkinson is the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. They spend several paragraphs on this – while acknowledging that he never even made that claim.
Did Dr. Hodkinson call the Covid pandemic a hoax? Yes, he did. But you’ll have a hard time figuring that out from this Snopes article.
Likewise, Snopes purports to address the claim that Medicare pays hospitals more for patients diagnosed with Covid. This information is extremely easy to find. A quick visit to either the American Hospital Association or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services websites yields a simple and straightforward “yes.” The first page of each of those sites indicates that, because of provisions in the CARES Act, Medicare will reimburse an extra 20% for Covid-19 inpatients. Snopes’s rating? A mixture.
Why? Well, in lieu of addressing the actual claim, Snopes instead chose to focus their attention on a particular Fox News interview where the guest was discussing Medicare payments for Covid patients.
[1:30:42 – Dr. Scott Jensen discusses increased payments for Covid patients] ***
[1:31:09] Snopes argued that, although the numbers given by Dr. Jensen are in line with what hospitals actually are receiving, Medicare doesn’t necessarily pay that exact amount every time and somehow gave the original question a “mixture” rating, even though the original claim is completely true: hospitals are paid more if a patient is diagnosed with Covid-19.
Incidentally, at the end of the fact check, Snopes quotes the Kaiser Family Foundation as saying that average Medicare payments for Covid-19 patients are even higher than the ones mentioned by Dr. Jensen.
[1:31:45] One instance where a rating of “partly true/partly false” might have been appropriate is in this PolitiFact article, addressing the claim that baseball great Hank Aaron and boxing champion Marvelous Marvin Hagler died after receiving Covid vaccinations. Had each death been addressed separately, the claim about Hank Aaron would have been true, and the claim about Marvelous Marvin would have been false, since it’s not known whether he had the vaccine. But with both assertions combined into one question, PolitiFact could have labeled it a mixture. Yet, they instead labeled the whole claim false, even while acknowledging that Hank Aaron did, in fact, pass away 17 days after taking the shot.
Clearly, PolitiFact was wrong to rate this false, since part of the original claim was that Hank Aaron died soon after receiving the Covid vaccine, which is true. But the implication of the claim, of course, is that the shot may have played a part in his death. While fact-checking bodies routinely dismiss this possibility, there are many valid concerns regarding the Covid-19 vaccines that merit our attention.
[1:32:51] For starters, the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are unlike any vaccine ever administered to humans. Conventional vaccines typically contain dead or weakened virus that the body still recognizes as a threat and against which it makes antibodies. The Covid mRNA vaccines are much different. They don’t contain any dead or weakened virus. Instead, they contain genetic code – instructions to the body on how to make spike proteins, those tiny protrusions found all over the outside of the coronavirus.
When the mRNA enters your cell, it actually instructs the cell to make spike proteins. Your body will then perceive those spike proteins – that it just created – as pathogens, or threats to the body. You will then produce antibodies in response to the threat that your body itself just created.
[1:33:47 – USA Today video on “never been used before” mRNA vaccines technology] ***
[1:34:51] The Covid-19 vaccines have been administered to hundreds of millions without any long-term safety data. In fact, for the first eight months of the rollout, none of the Covid-19 vaccines had even been approved by the FDA. They were being administered through an Emergency Use Authorization, under which the use of unapproved medical products is allowed.
[1:35:14 – FDA video on Emergency Use Authorization for unapproved medical products] ***
[1:35:46] The FDA did not approve the first Covid vaccine until August of 2021. Most people had not been told that the vaccines had not yet been approved.
The Covid injections differ from conventional vaccines in other ways. The traditional definition of a vaccine was the administration of a dead or weakened virus that produced immunity to a disease. The Covid vaccinations do not contain weakened virus, and they don’t provide immunity to the disease they’re intended to protect against. When many people pointed out that the Covid shots did not fit the CDC’s definition of a vaccine, the CDC set about changing the definition of a vaccine, explaining that it offers “protection” but not immunity.
If getting the shot doesn’t prevent the disease or transmission of the disease, what do they mean when they say that the Pfizer vaccine is “95% effective”?
[1:36:47] To answer this, we first have to understand how pharmaceutical companies calculate the efficacy rate for their products, as illustrated in this ad for Lipitor, a statin drug. The ad boldly claims that for certain patients, Lipitor reduces the risk of heart attack by a whopping 36%. But if we check the note at the bottom of the ad, we find that during the clinical study, 2% of the lipitor patients had heart attacks, compared with 3% in the placebo group. This means that 97% of patients in the placebo group were heart attack-free, compared to 98% of the Lipitor group – only about a 1% difference in the overall rate of heart attack between the two groups. This is called the absolute risk reduction. But since 2% is a third less than 3%, they’re able to claim a 36% relative risk reduction.
A July 2021 article in The Lancet, the world’s oldest and most well-known medical journal, explains that “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem” and that absolute risk reduction tends to be ignored, because it gives a much less impressive effect.
[1:38:07] The Pfizer vaccine efficacy rate was calculated in the same way. There were approximately 20,000 people in the vaccinated group and 20,000 in the placebo group. Out of the 20,000 in the placebo group, only 162 got Covid-19 during the study period. Out of the 20,000 in the vaccinated group, only eight got Covid-19. In other words, 99.2% of the placebo group did not get Covid, compared with 99.9% of the vaccinated group. There was a difference, to be sure, but the absolute risk reduction between the two groups was not even 1%.
There’s another important aspect of this study to consider: What did the vaccinated participants give up in exchange for that tiny decrease in their odds of getting Covid-19? Common side effects of the vaccine include fatigue, fever, chills, muscle aches, and headaches. Many people willingly suffered with these vaccine-induced symptoms – even taking time off work in many cases – because they were persuaded that the vaccines would drastically reduce their chances of getting Covid-19.
[1:39:26 – Officials promising that the vaccine will prevent Covid-19] ***
[1:40:09] Of course, this has not proven to be the case, with many vaccinated people finding themselves sick with Covid, often multiple times, and others dying despite having been vaccinated.
In May of 2022, the British government published a report on real-world effectiveness of the vaccines, concluding that, with two doses of Pfizer or Moderna, effectiveness dropped to around 15% in less than six months. A booster dose dropped to almost no effect in less than five months.
[1:40:42 – Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on ineffectiveness of Covid vaccines] ***
[1:42:17] As the interviewer mentioned, pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for vaccine injuries. Instead, damages are paid through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. However, the companies can be held liable for other products, and in 2009, Pfizer, the company that did so much for humanity, was fined the record sum of $2.3 billion – including $1.2 billion in criminal fines – for fraud surrounding the risks associated with their painkiller Bextra and other drugs. As noted by The New York Times, the 2.3 billion-dollar fine amounts to less than three weeks of Pfizer’s sales.
Not only have the vaccines failed to prevent infection, transmission, and death, but there is abundant evidence that they are actually causing harm. When the FDA was asked to make their Pfizer vaccine trial documents public, they were reluctant to comply, but were finally compelled by court order to begin releasing them early in 2022.
[1:43:23 – FDA ordered to disclose their data on the Pfizer vaccine] ***
[1:43:58] According to that FDA data, there were tens of thousands of serious adverse reactions reported during just the first 90 days of the rollout, including over 1200 fatalities. The number of deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in 2021 alone is higher than the number reported for all other vaccines combined since the VAERS database was created in 1990. Again, fact checking sites routinely dismissed these numbers as statistically unimportant. Yet past vaccines for which a comparatively small number of reports were filed were sometimes halted for further study and to prevent possible harm.
Another frequently heard claim is that, since “anyone” can submit a VAERS report, those reports should not be taken too seriously. But, as prominently noted on the VAERS reporting site, filling out a false report is a violation of federal law, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Furthermore, capturing individual reports was the whole purpose of creating the database. According to their website, one of the primary objectives of VAERS was to provide a national safety monitoring system for public health emergencies, such as a large-scale flu vaccination program. VAERS relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. These reports are not meant to be proof that a vaccine is harmful, but they are especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information, so they can assess any possible safety concerns.
Unfortunately, neither the FDA, the CDC, nor their global counterparts have addressed these unexpected patterns – or even acknowledged the possible safety concerns. In fact, those who do speak up about anything from vaccine related deaths to fraud during the clinical trials are typically censored or even fired.
[1:46:08 – whistleblower Brook Jackson fired] ***
[1:46:38] Andreas Schofbeck was a long-time board member of a large insurance company in Germany who noticed that physician billing data for 2021 indicated that the number of vaccine-related adverse events was up to eight times higher than government estimates. Schofbeck shared his data with the Ehrlich Institute, Germany’s equivalent of our FDA, calculating that if this was representative of the rest of the country, up to three million Germans might have been harmed by the vaccines. He suggested checking with other health insurance funds to see if their data was similar. Instead, he was fired two weeks later.
[1:47:18] Lincoln National Life Insurance reported that group insurance claims for 2021 increased over 160% from the previous year. The amount of death benefits paid out for group life insurance in 2020 was just under $550 million. The amount paid out in 2021 was over $1.4 billion – over two and a half times as much. This is all the more significant when we consider that most group life insurance is purchased by employers covering working age employees, not elderly retirees.
Scott Davison, the CEO of OneAmerica Life Insurance, reported a 40% increase in numbers of deaths – something he says has never been seen before.
[1:48:11 – Scott Davison on unprecedented numbers of deaths in 2021] ***
Davison acknowledges that the death certificates do not point to Covid-19 as the cause of this increased mortality, and, again, this spike in death rates is primarily among working-age people – not the elderly, who have consistently been seen as the age group most likely to die from Covid-19. Yet, incredibly, Davison and, more importantly, the CDC do not consider the possibility that the vaccines could be the cause of the increased deaths and suggest that Covid is still to blame, even though the never-before-seen increase corresponds with never-before-seen vaccines.
As for the almost complete media blackout on the subject, not only is investigative journalism nearly extinct, as we’ve already seen, but in this case, there’s an even greater incentive for them to keep quiet.
[1:50:00 – “Brought to you by Pfizer” corporate news sponsor montage] ***
[1:50:55] In fact, the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on health agencies, the media, and government policy cannot be overstated, and gross conflicts of interest between so-called Big Pharma and big government are widely acknowledged but largely tolerated. Strikingly, eleven of the last twelve FDA commissioners went on to hold lucrative positions in the pharmaceutical industry, often profiting from policies put in place during their time at the FDA.
Billions have been made from the Covid vaccines, and with the very real possibility of annual Covid vaccines and forever boosters, billions more are guaranteed to keep rolling in. Importantly, however, money is not the only motive for perpetuating the Covid-19 narrative. Many already-wealthy world leaders saw the pandemic as an opportunity to expand their influence and to move the world toward a system of global governance and persuade nations to give up even more of their sovereignty.
The current scheme to expand and transfer decision-making power from independent nations to a global governing body is called The Great Reset. A prominent leader of this ambitious effort is Klaus Schwab, founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum. As we saw earlier, the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201, where a coronavirus pandemic was simulated and global responses were coordinated a few months before the Covid-19 pandemic was declared.
[1:52:29 – Klaus Schwab on his vision to “shape the system for the post-corona era”] ***
[1:53:00] Schwab candidly shares his vision of the post-corona era in his book Covid-19: The Great Reset, published in July of 2020. “Our aim,” he writes, “is to help our readers grasp the multi-faceted dimension of the changes that are coming. …[W]e should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world… “[A]cute crises boost the power of the state. It’s always been the case, and there’s no reason why it should be different with the Covid-19 pandemic. …as in the past, taxation will increase. [And the justification for the increase] will be based on the narrative of ‘countries at war,’ (only this time against an invisible enemy.) …During the lockdowns, many consumers previously reluctant to rely…on digital applications and services were forced to change their habits almost overnight: watching movies online instead of going to the cinema, having meals delivered instead of going out…talking to friends remotely instead of meeting them [in person]… Some of the old habits will certainly return (…we are social animals, after all!), but many of the tech behaviors that we were forced to adopt during confinement will…become more natural. As social and physical distancing persist, relying more on digital platforms…will…gain ground on formerly ingrained habits.” For instance, a family group chat is not as fun as a family reunion, but it’s “safer, cheaper, and greener.” “[T]he containment of the coronavirus pandemic will necessitate a global surveillance network… [and We] will see how contact tracing has…a quasi-essential place in… [combating] Covid-19… Most people, fearful of…Covid-19, will…be willing to give up a lot of privacy and will agree that…public power can sometimes override individual rights. …This is what happened after [September 11th]…new security measures…became the norm. At that time, these measures were deemed extreme, but today they are used everywhere and considered ‘normal.’”
In a previous book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab is very clear: “Citizen concerns over privacy…will require adjustments in thinking…”
[1:55:23 – Schwab says “fourth industrial revolution” will change us digitally, physically, and biologically] ***
[1:56:10] Reading again from his book, “It is in the biological domain where I see the greatest challenges for the development of both social norms and appropriate regulation.… We are confronted with new questions around what it means to be human…and what rights and responsibilities we have when it comes to changing the very genetic code of future generations.”
If these disturbing ideas were coming from an obscure internet blogger, they could simply be dismissed. But this is the chairman of the World Economic Forum, and his colleagues are among the most powerful and influential people in the world. These ideas are discussed in global summits, attended by the likes of the King of England, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and many others.
[1:57:01 – Schwab explains that they “penetrate the cabinets” with their WEF “Young Global Leaders”] ***
Professor Yuval Harari is another prominent figure who is warmly embraced by the World Economic Forum.
[1:58:03 – Yuval Harari says humans are hackable animals; biggest problem will be useless people] ***
[2:02:17] Actually, a much more important question is “How can we secure our freedom so we can each decide for ourselves what we want to become?” As we saw during the Covid crisis, when an authority figure proclaims that something is beneficial, a large part of the populace will demand it for everyone, whether or not it actually is beneficial, and with zero regard for personal choice. As Harari himself points out, this can empower a tyrannical government.
[2:02:47 – Harari warns of digital dictatorships; supports surveillance, depending on who is doing it.] ***
As for how surveillance will be conducted, contact tracing apps and health travel passports are already part of the scheme.
[2:03:34 – travel passports will determine whether you will be allowed to fly] ***
As for who will be in control, the self-proclaimed “elites” have made it clear that they expect a seat at the table.
[2:04:20 – “Elites” trust each other more and more, but most people trust “their elite” less] ***
So where do they want to go?
[2:05:19 – World Economic Forum predictions for 2030 – You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy; climate change will be the media’s focus after interest in the “pandemic” wanes] ***
[2:06:55] Whatever the next crisis – whether it’s another pandemic, or an alleged climate emergency, or something entirely new – we need to determine now that we will guard against the further loss of our freedoms and not fall victim to the next manufactured crisis.
[2:07:12] As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” The implication is that, having been once deceived, we can only blame ourselves if we fail to learn from the experience and fall for the same trick a second time.
Thankfully, we don’t need to be medical professionals or geopolitical experts to guard against the next wave of propaganda. Instead, we can gauge the legitimacy of the crisis by testing it against the “Three Cs” of Constitution, Conscience, and Common Sense.
[Test #1: Constitution]
[2:07:49] Do proposed government solutions violate our basic rights?
This includes not only what we think of as Constitutional rights as US citizens, but the basic human rights of all citizens, only a few of which are mentioned in our Bill of Rights. Governments cannot shut down our private businesses or destroy our livelihoods. Governments cannot forbid us from freely associating with each other. Governments cannot mandate medical procedures. All of these things are blatantly unconstitutional and violate our fundamental human rights. The US Constitution is only nine typewritten pages. If you’re not familiar with it, this is a great place to start.
[Test #2: Conscience]
[2:08:34] Do the proposed measures violate our conscience or our sense of morality?
During the Covid debacle, we were encouraged to stay away from each other and to stop visiting the elderly and the lonely. Some grandparents went months or even years without hugging their grandchildren. Sick patients were denied comfort from friends and relatives. Families were cruelly prevented from being with their dying loved ones, who often spent their final moments among strangers. Even mourning together was restricted, as funeral attendance was limited. These were egregious violations of conscience and basic humanity.
[Test #3: Common Sense]
[2:09:15] Do the recommendations and rules make sense? Covid tests, we were told, required a painful swab of the back of our nasal cavity, because spitting into a tube would not provide a sufficient sample of virus. At the same time, we were warned that merely talking with a friend was enough to spread the deadly virus.
The media told us that healthy people could transmit disease, without providing any evidence for this.
Masks were allegedly filtering deadly germs, yet it was okay to keep these supposedly germ-laden cloths in our pockets and put them right back onto our faces over and over.
A restaurant owner is forbidden from serving guests outdoors on the patio while 50 feet away, a film crew sets up tables and enjoys lunch.
A pharmacy tries to keep people healthy by making them wait outside in the cold for hours.
[2:10:10 – Pharmacy makes customers freeze outside in order to “social distance”] ***
In California, a man is arrested for paddleboarding by himself out on the ocean during the so-called lockdown. Nonsense like this is a tell-tale sign of a false narrative.
What should we do the next time we’re confronted with a questionable crisis? We can start now by turning off the corporate news and looking, as Charlie Chester suggests, for less biased sources of information.
[2:10:45 – CNN’s Charlie Chester says the least biased news is from independent home podcasters] ***
[2:11:00] The best independent researchers provide links to the sources they cite, so you can verify the data for yourself. They often provide some or even all of their information free of charge and are typically funded not through corporate advertising but by subscriber donations. So if you appreciate their work, please consider supporting them.
Sharing information with friends one-on-one is extremely helpful when it’s done politely. Anger, arrogance, and frustration are never helpful and only alienate people who might have been open-minded if they had been approached respectfully.
Gathering and protesting can show others that they’re not alone, but the mainstream media will typically ignore the protests altogether or try to catch a few protesters behaving badly and highlight them. Few people, for example, are aware of the numerous anti-lockdown, anti-mandate Covid demonstrations that were held all over the world.
Ultimately, when governments issue absurd, unethical, or tyrannical mandates, simply standing up for what’s right may be the most important thing you can do. We can peacefully and politely decline to patronize stores that enforce government decrees and refuse to send our children to schools that implement nonsensical or abusive policies. Obviously, this can be difficult, so it’s tempting to tolerate a certain level of mistreatment. But the more we tolerate, the worse it will get.
Ideally, we should work together as communities to resist government overreach. But what if we have to stand alone, especially at first? Can one person make a difference? Emphatically, yes.
[2:12:46 – Asch and Milgram experiments; James Corbett on the influence a single person can have] ***
[2:17:52] Political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek reminds us of another important truth: that in fact, we are never alone, and that speaking openly about the need for God’s help in today’s world should not be taboo. Here she’s addressing a so-called conservative audience, but her message transcends meaningless partisan politics.
[2:18:13 – Eva Vlaardingerbroek: Reject Globalism; Embrace God] ***
May God help us to learn from the past and give us kindness and courage for the future.
Thank you for watching.