Who Has Been Teaching Humans to Make Terrible Decisions Related to COVID-19?
Who Has Been Teaching Humans to Make Terrible Decisions Related to COVID-19?
Much like the London blitz in World War II, we are getting bombarded. We are under constant bombardment, and yet we do not know it. Just today I was driving and, while listening to the radio, heard a Public Service Announcement for heart healthcare. [Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb snag radio partner for ‘Tune in to AFib’ awareness push | Fierce Pharma and Bristol-Myers Squibb And Pfizer To Highlight Commitment To Reducing The Risk Of Stroke Caused By Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) And Treating Deep Vein Thrombosis/Pulmonary Embolism (DVT/PE) At ESC Congress 2017 | BioSpace] It was about detecting the warning signs of a heart attack. I thought that very odd, but immediately realized we are in a world where unexpected heart attacks are now called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), a convenient way to explain away the catastrophic increase in excess mortality, largely among the young, and likely due to the COVID-19 inoculations.
The advertisement closed by disclosing it was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Remember that Bristol-Myers Squibb paid millions due to litigation over whether or not Plavix is “safe and effective”. [Bristol-Myers, Sanofi Must Pay $834 Million Over Plavix – Bloomberg] That sounds familiar, “safe and effective.” That is the basis for the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of Pfizer’s COMIRNATY® and PAXLOVID® for COVID-19 treatment. However, we find ourselves in a world where the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) [https://vaers.hhs.gov/] and V-SAFE [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vsafe.html] are showing growing deaths among the young and healthy due to myocarditis and other complications. Healthy people, largely young men, many of whom are professional athletes, are literally dropping dead. Was the ad simply damage control by Big Pharma?
Earlier this year, we read stories about how cold showers and gardening cause heart attacks. [Heart attacks in healthy people: A popular shower habit could take the blame (timesnownews.com) and How Fall Yard Work Can Cause Heart Problems – Cleveland Clinic] And what about artificial sweeteners? [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/07/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-increased-risk-of-heart-disease-study-finds] Yep, they, too, are a problem. But wait you say — cold showers, gardening, and artificial sweeteners have been around for, well, almost forever. And yet, for no apparent reason, we are witnessing unprecedented increases in excess mortality from these very things.
What is going on here? It is as if someone wants us to think the people we see dropping dead are dying unexpectedly from cold showers and not, and not, what could it be? Oh yeah, the COVID-19 jab and boosters. In this paper we shall consider how easily the human mind may be tricked. We will consider how some, really a few, can use our own minds to work against our own self-interest. And we will conclude with ways to mitigate the efforts of those who want to control our behavior. We will leave it an open question as to why they want to do such things, but there are historic examples from which to learn.
Humans are very bad with assessing risk. We all over-weigh small probabilities. Worried about dying in a plane crash? Convinced you are going to win the lottery? Those are perfect examples. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky arguably created a field of study around this. As Tversky once famously said, “We study natural stupidity.” [The Two Friends Who Changed How We Think About How We Think | The New Yorker] What they really studied is how we think about how we think, which it turns out is very scary.
According to Katie Milkman, host of the Podcast Choiceology, the odds of dying in a plane wreck in the U.S. are 1 in 11,000,000 or .000009%. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 40 million lightning strikes hit the ground in the United States each year; yet the odds of getting hit are less than one in a million, and ninety percent of those struck survive. Through August 22, 2022, the lives lost to lightening total 14. [National Weather Service Lightning Fatalities in 2022: 18] Have you been worried about either? Most would say, “Yes.”
One the other hand, in 2020, 697,000 people in the U.S. died of a heart attack. [Heart Disease Facts | cdc.gov] That is the number one cause of death in America. What are the odds of dying of COVID -19? Here is a link to the Center for Disease Controls detailing that data. Looking at “Risk for COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death by Age Group | CDC,” are you able to figure it out? Me either. It is as if the CDC is willfully trying to confuse us. Here is a link that is a bit easier on the eyes: COVID-19 Deaths by Age | The Heritage Foundation. You will immediately note that ninety-three percent of the deaths are for those over 55. [COVID Infection Fatality Rates by Sex and Age | American Council on Science and Health (acsh.org)] Pretty scary, right? That is over ten percent odds if you are over 80 years old.
But wait one minute, the average life expectancy in the U.S. for everyone is 78 for whites, 72 for blacks, and almost 80 for Hispanics. [Odds of dying: by age, gender, lifestyle stats in 2022 | finder.com] Is it possible, is it probable, that those fatality numbers are used to scare us into accepting lockdowns and insane mandates? Note how very low the COVID death rate is for those under forty — between .001% and .056%, depending on age and gender. And yet the FDA just approved the COVID jab for children whose risk of dying from that disease is between .001% and .003%.
What you very likely do not know is that, in the Pfizer clinical trial, the clinical trial data alone showed 2.2% serious cardiovascular adverse events and approximately 3.3% for all cardiovascular adverse events, including 130 myocardial infractions and 91 cardiac failures. Those are just the adverse events for cardiovascular problems. Were you told that before you got the jab? Me either and my family has a history of heart issues. These numbers come directly from Pfizer, from the clinical trial data Pfizer attempted to have sealed for 75 years. [https://www.phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf] That is the same trail data that was used to secure the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) approval. Let that sink in. Kahneman and Tversky are worth exploring relative to COVID-19, the Pfizer clinical trial, adverse events, and excess mortality rates.
Kahneman and Tversky also studied errors in judgment. These errors are both common and predictable. They call this judgement error one of “availability.” “For example, ask people what they think is the ratio of gun homicides to gun suicides in the United States. Most of them will guess that gun homicides are much more common, but the truth is that gun suicides happen about twice as often.” [The Two Friends Who Changed How We Think About How We Think | The New Yorker] The easier it is for us to remember situations where an event has frequently occurred, like on television shows and the nightly news, then the more likely we will be to believe it is common in real life.
Let us consider a couple of examples. Did COVID kill the person in the intensive care unit (ICU), or was it the treatment given that killed the person? We are now seeing lawsuits that claim wrongful death, constructive fraud, violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, medical negligence, and battery. What is the problem? Apparently, Anthony Fauci’s favorite drug, Remdesivir, is one cause. The plaintiffs claim they, now deceased, were subject to medical deception and provided the deadly drug Veklury (a.k.a., Remdesivir). Yet the news media leads us to believe the cause was COVID. Was it the treatment or the disease?
Our minds play tricks on us. How many of you know someone who unexpectedly dropped dead. Was it bad luck, or perhaps due to myocarditis due to the jab? [Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex | Circulation (ahajournals.org)] We are living in a time of acute sins of commission and omission. Are the sins meant to lead us to errors in judgement — an error to take the jab, to get boosted, and, horrifically, to have our children jabbed?
On the other hand, Edward Dowd, a former Wall Street analyst and BlackRock portfolio manager, has been analyzing excess mortality data from the CDC and from insurance companies with his partner, Josh Stirling, an insurance analyst. Excess mortality or excess deaths refers to the number of deaths from all causes above what would be expected under normal circumstances. Life insurance companies report that death rates among working-age Americans had gone up 40 percent from pre-pandemic levels. The Society of Actuaries now reinforces these results. “In the 25 to 34 [age group], they saw 78 percent excess mortality in the third quarter of 2021. They also saw, in the 35 to 44 age group, 100 percent excess mortality,” Dowd says. [Edward Dowd – Totality of Evidence] What radical change happened over this very short time period? Not COVID, because the excess death data is growing as COVID deaths decline. Perhaps it is the jab [Edward Dowd – Totality of Evidence]
Behavioral economics is the study of effects of emotional, cognitive, psychological, cultural, and social variables that drive decisions made by individuals and institutions. Why do we make irrational decisions that work against our self-interest?
How difficult is it to influence our decision-making? Are other things at work? Our minds do not work as well as we would like them to; we get comfortable. We trick ourselves. Remember driving lessons that implore you to “check left, check right, check left again, and then proceed”? How many have become comfortable in ignoring that lesson when turning right, when no car is approaching from your left, there is no problem merging, there is no risk of a collision, there is no vehicle to hit? And then, unexpectedly (where have I seen that term before?) and to our horror, we discover there is a child on a bike coming from the right riding directly in front of our vehicle. You were not using your foveal or peripheral vision. You did not need to since you made that turn, at that intersection, hundreds of times without incident.
Katy Milkman discusses the importance of lists to ensure we do not make behavioral mistakes in her wonderful Podcast Choiceology. [Choiceology with Katy Milkman: In the Face of Risk: With Guests Jeff Elison & Ido Erev on Apple Podcasts] When your life, or another’s, is on the line, conforming to a checklist of safety precautions matter. We all skip steps a lot of the time, completely ignoring the risk because we have not had a failure. We get lax. There is no problem…until there is.
There is an interesting problem here. The material Milkman presents is in the context of risks associated with not getting jabbed, not the possibility that there could be significant and lethal long-term problems from the jab. She begins, “For many, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic was terrifying.” Terrifying – fear – hold that thought.
It is one thing for us to get lax; however, what happens when people we trust our lives to get lax? Do you want to fly in an aircraft where the pilot and crew fail to do their safety checks? In one episode of Choiceology, we are told by Cass Sunstein that too much information is a problem, that we need to simplify and consider a simple cost-benefit analysis. But what happens when the time frame of risk expands beyond the time frame a simple cost-benefit analysis is considered? What happens when critical information is withheld and there is no informed consent? What could go wrong?
We are learning of the faulty nature of the Pfizer COVID-19 clinical trials. You know, the ones that Pfizer had sealed for 75 years before they were legally forced to release the documents. What do we know about those who conducted the trials? We know at least one lawsuit has been filed by Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who witnessed the lapse of standards required in clinical trials. That should not be comforting to anyone who took the jab or booster.
Forbes reports that the life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped for the second year in a row – the largest drop in nearly 100 years. [Two Years Of Covid Caused The Steepest Drop In U.S. Life Expectancy In Nearly 100 Years, CDC Data Reveals (forbes.com)] That is unexpected news. Forbes attributes the decline to COVID-19, but is that accurate? We have the jab. We have the boosters. Could something else be driving the excess mortality to unexplained heights? If so, what is the impact on those who trust Forbes and others to present quantitative data, numbers, in some sort of accurate way? Are we being manipulated? Perhaps the availability of information from trusted sources is actually causing massive errors in judgement.
Is more at work here? Did the Pfizer clinical trial folks get lax? What about those charged with protecting our health, the CDC, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and of course, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the organization led by the face of COVID-19, Anthony Fauci? Were safety controls followed? Are they now? Should we trust those who we have historically trusted? Why do we trust Dr. Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and others? Why do we trust the pharmaceutical companies? Have we failed to look left, look right, and look left again?
It also may be that present bias is at work here. Present bias is when we have a tendency, and we all do, to value an immediate payoff more than the future cost or benefit. When you went through a carpool line to get the jab, did anyone explain the risks of the intervention to you? Have you or your child been coaxed into getting the jab with a lottery ticket or free ice cream without discussing the risks? Informed consent is a bedrock of our medical system. That is when you grant permission, after you learn of the possible consequences from your doctor, for a treatment with full knowledge of the risks and benefits. What if those risks are withheld? What if your doctor does not believe there is a risk since those charged to protect us have approved the treatment? What if those who approve the treatment are approving the treatment based upon trial data that is false or incomplete? What if those whom we trust with our health did not check left, check right, and check left again? Would that affect your decision making? It is becoming increasingly clear those we trust the most with our health have failed us. They continue to fail us.
You say, “That could never happen to me. I am too strong. This is nonsense.” The reality is that behavioral experiments repeatedly show we are susceptible to readily making these errors, even horrible errors. Are the poor decisions self-determined, or do we have some help? Let us consider a few famous examples.
- The Milgram Experiment was the one where subjects provided increasing shocks (fake) to actors who progressively answered questions incorrectly. In spite of painful screaming and pleas to stop by the hidden actors, the subjects continued to increase the voltage. The subjects were doing this for science. For science. They increased the voltage at the urging of the proctor wearing the white lab coat. This is a classic example of diffusion of responsibility. “I am just doing what I am told, I am perfectly willing to execute a task, an awful task, if I can defer the responsibility to others.” Are you aware that there was a wide variety of vaccine dosages provided to humans in the clinical trials? I am beginning to think history will show that many including doctors, registered nurses, clinicians, teachers, administrators, law enforcement, and leaders who mandated and encouraged the jabs have diffused their responsibility to protect you, me, and most importantly our children. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM&feature=emb_imp_woyt and Milgram experiment – Wikipedia]
- In the Stanford Prison Experiment, Philip Zimbardo divided subjects into roles as guards and prisoners. Subjects were dehumanized and identified by number only. In only one week, the guards became more sadistic and punitive or beneficent by rewarding good behavior. This was done in order to divide the prisoners. Significantly, no real laws or rules were broken, the reward and punishment systems were arbitrary. It was subjective. There was no legal authority. Another interesting finding was that when people are put in prison, they act like they belong in prison. That immediately reminds me of the lockdowns. The lockdowns were arbitrary, there was no legal authority, and yet you and I complied. [Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment | Summary, Results, & Ethical Issues (simplypsychology.org)] We complied for the larger community – hold that thought.
- Another example is the Solomon Asch Experiment. [The Asch Experiment – YouTube] This may be the most relevant example for the environment in which we find ourselves now. A subject is seated with multiple fake actors who intentionally give obviously wrong answers with certainty. Shockingly, the real subject quickly conforms erroneously to the group norm. Repeated experiments have actors in a medical waiting room stand when a buzzer goes off. The subject, with no instruction, quickly conforms. Amazingly, the subject then becomes an instructor and leads other subjects who enter afterwards to stand when they hear the buzzer. As social creatures, we quickly conform to the group norm. Consider that this technique is intentionally used to establish a fake consensus and manufactured majority. Does this make you even a bit uncomfortable as you consider the past few years of six-feet social distancing and the on again/off again mask mandates?
This is very disconcerting given the shocking conformity we have seen to mandates put forth from on high. A very interesting and important finding came out of these experiments. If only one other test subject on the panel confirms the correct answer or refuses to stand when the buzzer sounds, the success of driving erroneous conformity drops by 87%.
That is very interesting you say, but why are these psychological experiments on human behavior important? Because we are being manipulated into masking, social distancing, taking the jab, convincing others to take the jab, and God knows what else. Just remember, those marketing products know human behavior.
- They know they can make people do awful things if they reassure them. They will not be held responsible.
- They know that they can rely on people to abuse any power conferred upon them or convince them they have no power if treated as if they have none.
- They know that peer pressure will quickly change people’s minds even in the face of an undeniable reality. This is especially easy if you make them feel completely alone.
- They know that if you offer people only a small reward for completing a task, they will make up their own psychological justification for taking it. Come on over to the van, little girl…I am giving out free ice cream if you agree to this jab. [Free ice cream at several vaccine sites on Friday (yahoo.com)]
- They know that people will mindlessly do whatever everyone else is doing without ever asking for a reason.
- And they know that people will happily believe something that never happened if it is repeated often enough.
They know all of this. And they use that knowledge to convince us to do things that may in fact work against our self-interest. Every commercial you see, every article you read, every movie you watch, every news story, every “viral” social media post, every trending hashtag suck us in. This sentence is brought to you by Pfizer.
All are intentionally constructed with these principles in mind to elicit specific emotional reactions that steer your behavior, that influence your beliefs, that drive you to make these errors in judgement. And they have it down to a science. Always remember that.
CAN THESE BEHAVIORAL TOOLS BE USED TO ACHIEVE OTHER ENDS?
There is the concept of “Mass Formation” as Mattia Desmet points out in his brilliant book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Desmet, a clinical psychiatrist, points out, “…flight into false security is a logical consequence of the psychological inability to deal with uncertainty and risk, an inability that has been building up in society for decades. It is the unspoken tensions, fears, and disagreements on an ideological level that prevent the numbers from settling down and that makes society polarized…” [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.]
This higher level approach has been characterized as the “banality of evil” by Hannah Arendt. Or the mindless and uncritical adherence to social construct, or normal people who stick to a dehumanizing form of logic. This concept has become acutely relevant. “These four words express a deep truth about human nature; that is, that the normalization of unspeakable atrocities can lead any person, no matter how sane, to great sin.” [Arendt, H. and Canovan, M., 1958. The Human Condition. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.]
The unvaccinated are dangerous because they spread the virus. That is what the medical experts, pharma companies, media, the American President, and even loved ones convey. Such behavior is, astonishingly, not driven by greed or sadism, but rather by ideological reasons. Adolph Eichmann via the establishment of Jewish Councils, “…tried to make cooperation attractive.” [Arendt, H., 1964. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Revised and Enlarged Edition, [online] p.7. Available at: <https://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/arendt_eichmanninjerusalem.pdf>.] Nazis’ good intentions were for the good of the whole, the entire community, the entire state. However, it is important and disturbing to understand that, even in this state, people can make ethical choices. Mass formation impacts both the perpetrators and victims. Good intentioned leaders are capable of self-denial.
Consider the Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremer’s paper Equity in the Fight Against COVID-19: The Benefits to Germany from a Global Approach, funded by the Gates Foundation. One sales point made to the Germans was, “Equitable approaches to fighting Covid-19 have a clear health and moral case, and Germany has already made sizable contributions in support of these outcomes. Our analysis suggests this approach is not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do for Germany.” [2020-german-participation-in-the-act-a-program-11_26_2020.pdf (who.int)] And here is a representative of the Biden administration speaking about efforts to distribute the jab globally: “I think ACT-A was created — COVAX was created — with, I think, very good intentions….” [https://test.portside.org/2022-09-25/how-bill-gates-and-partners-used-their-clout-control-global-covid-response-little] Good intentions, a moral case, to help vulnerable people – do those terms sound familiar?
Please consider that the COVID-19 “crisis” was not a Black Swan event. It did not surprise us. Pandemics are actually common. How we reacted is the surprise. Why was this time different? Fear? Manufactured fear? As Desmet says, “(COVID-19) fits into a series of increasingly desperate and self-destructive societal responses to objects of fear; terrorists, global warming, coronavirus. Whenever a new object of fear arises in society, there is only one response; increased control.” [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.] Put another way, as the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once stated, “Never let a crisis go to waste”. [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rahm-emanuel-on-coronavirus-response-never-allow-a-crisis-to-go-to-waste] How quaint, especially in the context of, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America,” stated by Barak H. Obama. [https://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/glenn/five-days-away-from-fundamentally-transforming-the-united-states-of-america-again/] So, there is indeed an incentive to manufacture fear among the masses. Those comments have a bit more meaning today than when first spoken.
So how do you “fundamentally” change America? According to Desmet, four elements are needed.
- Create an environment of “generalized loneliness, social isolation, and a lack of social bonds among the population”. Lockdowns – check.
- Destroy the bond of people who produce something. Shut down businesses, schools, universities, etc. – check.
- Create “free floating anxiety” and “psychological unease.” Watch mainstream media broadcasts, social media groups, and other that control or cancel dissent – check.
- Establish a focal point of frustration and aggression. Demonize dissenters. “Anti-vaxxer”, “deplorable”, “insurgent”, etc. – check. [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.]
Does this sound familiar? “We are mesmerized by an endless procession of numbers and never arrive at what really matters; an open debate about the subjective and ideological frameworks from which we interpret the numbers”. [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.] Remember Solomon Asch’s experiments mentioned above regarding conformity. In early 2020, we found ourselves where it was easy to accept most any story from the so-called “domain expert.” They cannot, absolutely cannot, be wrong, especially if there is no dissent to measure claims against the narrative. Did it ever strike you as odd that from the beginning Fauci, Collins, Deborah Birx, Robert Redfield, et al. did not recommend simple things like diet and exercise?
The four actions above lead to the formation of three groups.
- Those who agree with and believe the narrative – the idealogues, the totalitarians.
- Those that do not believe or are unsure of the narrative but go along anyway – this really is not hurting me, so what do I care.
- Those that do not agree and who speak out against the narrative – the whistleblowers, the truth seekers, those who find themselves on a cultural island.
Desmet notes that these groups transcend social class, race, profession, hobbies, political party, etc. Ironically, diversity is most visible among those who protest the loudest. In other words, the nonconformist, those “individuals (who) express themselves in their own specific way…” [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.]
That is why totalitarians work diligently to “severe all family and social ties and replace them with acceptable bonds.” [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.] Have you or someone you know been culled from family gatherings over jab status? Have you seen someone get shamed for not wearing a mask in a public place. Bonus points awarded if it was outdoors in hot weather while cycling or running.
This mass formation that Desmet discusses is like hypnosis. “Totalitarian systems [are] maintained by systemic indoctrination and propaganda daily via mass media. And dissent is eliminated. The idealogues, and colleagues, and friends, and family, enthusiastically censor voices in the private sphere as well through social fragmentation and isolation.” [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.] Have you been invited to a mask-only event? Have you lived through gut-wrenching virtual signaling over the style of mask one wears or how quickly one shares their medial jab history?
Those in the third group, those skeptics, are confused and soon discover they are on an island. Amazingly irrational behavior — a refusal of others to not only not consider evidence, but actively try to discredit the messenger — appears everywhere and from seemingly everyone. Suddenly the world becomes unbelievably intolerant. Remember Asch’s experiment above, the one that demonstrates how easy it is to get someone to conform, to irrationally stand up in a waiting room because everyone else does? Hell yes, this is confusing to those who are pausing, those who want more information, those who sense that something is terribly, terribly amiss.
How do we protect ourselves?
As we get beat down with these intentional efforts to control us, what can we do? As Desmet points out, a “…flight into false security is a logical consequence of the psychological inability to deal with uncertainty and risk, and inability that has been building up in society for decades. It is the unspoken tensions, fears, and disagreements on an ideological level that prevent the numbers from settling down and that makes society polarized…” [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.] Polarized, now that sounds familiar. Desmet, suggests we work to develop a simple frame of refence that allows us to control our emotions and anxiety.
How do we even know we are there. Try this thought experiment. Did you take the jab in order protect the collective out of altruism, to “save” others, to keep others from succumbing to COVID-19? Austin, Texas’ famous South by Southwest event was one of the very first major events to be canceled. [SXSW Update: Registration Deferral Details and More – SXSW] To paraphrase one of the promoter’s, “No one wants to kill Grandma, no one wants to kill Willie Nelson.” That is an example of radical sacrifice for the collective. In an odd way it is similar to those innocents who were sentenced to death during Stalin’s show trials. They were so bought-in that they willingly sacrificed for the Communist Party.
How else might you realize you are being sucked into mass formation? If you readily become intolerant of dissent, that might be a sign. Have you accused someone of being an “anti-vaxxer”? Did you accuse someone of being a “conspiracy theorist” or a “truther”? Have you repeated a lie that intentionally is written to disparage a subject matter expert who is raising dissenting points that defy all logic. Ever heard of ivermectin? You know, horse paste? [People Are Eating Horse Paste to Fight COVID. These Doctors Are One Reason Why. | HuffPost Latest News]
How did you respond when Joe Rogan, who has the largest podcast audience in the U.S., revealed that he used ivermectin effectively and challenged CNN’s medical expert, Dr. Sanjay Gupta on why his network lied about the therapeutics proven efficacy? [Joe Rogan & CNN Sanjay Gupta Podcast Transcript: Ivermectin | Rev] How did you react when you learned that the developer of ivermectin won a Nobel Prize, largely because it is likely the most successful therapeutic ever, saving more lives than any other? [Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 – PubMed (nih.gov)] What about when you learned the efficacy of ivermectin’s use in India? [Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study – PubMed (nih.gov) and Evaluation of Ivermectin as a Potential Treatment for Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial in Eastern India – PubMed (nih.gov)] Was your first reaction to reject the message, discount the credentials of the messenger, and then go into attack mode?
Radical intolerance suggests we are susceptible to committing mass atrocities, just like the ones we learned about growing up that shocked us to our cores. Who could possibly fall into those beliefs? We likely have been programmed to believe it is our ethical duty. The fact is we may have blood on our hands. How many would be alive today were they allowed to follow a physician’s prescribed ivermectin regime early on?
Maybe, just maybe, you are one of the few who are starting to see some things that are softening your position. You now defend yourself by making the case that you were never made aware of these events, of these facts? You were making decisions off incomplete information. Experts were advocating – they still are – for the jab — just like the proctors in the experiments encouraging the subjects to increase the voltage in spite of the screams on the other side of the wall.
Maybe it is due to a concerted and constantly supported effort of indoctrination and propaganda disseminated through mass media and otherwise. According to Desmet, mass formation must be “constantly fed by indoctrination and propaganda.” [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.] What makes this so very appalling, so very dangerous, is that it not only helps control the public space; but, more insidiously, it enables control of private spaces.
Have you been uninvited from an annual holiday meal; or subjected to some masking and social distancing protocol in your own home that has no basis, especially with children who have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19? Do you think we need vaccination passports to protect everyone? Did you give a neighbor the stink-eye because they unknowingly walked the wrong direction down a newly created grocery store aisle? Maybe, just maybe, you can be persuaded to support awful, evil acts because you believe in the manufactured narratives that others like you support — the narratives they support without really thinking through what exactly they are doing.
That could never happen. Heh. Another uncomfortable example is the end of World War II in Japan. The Japanese citizens watched largely uncontested U.S. bombers and fully understood that things were not going well. Of course, they were told by leadership that things were going well. Their eyes did not deceive them. They could read the pamphlets with calls to surrender and evacuate the cities that were about to be bombed. They thought it propaganda and did not believe those who were delivering the real truth, the bombs. The Japanese citizens chose to believe the emperor. However, Emperor Hirohito and defense leaders continued to lie, continued to bombard the Japanese citizens with another narrative. This propaganda continued until the bitter end and was so bad that Hirohito’s “surrender” speech did not mention surrender. [Hirohito surrender broadcast – Wikipedia]
You realize the Francis Collins, the former Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); Deborah Birx, the former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator; Robert Redfield, the former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and now Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), have all resigned or announced their resignations, right? Are they retiring due to a job well done, or are they getting ahead of the shockwave of the adverse event damage their decisions created?
WHAT IS COMING?
Consider the current Pfizer ads which warn us about serious heart problems. [Pfizer TV and radio ads warn the world about serious heart problems, like atrial fibrillation, but leave out the MAIN CAUSE – their COVID vaccines] And what about those published stories that blame heart issues on cold showers, sugar substitutes, gardening, and even death by joy? [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/university-student-dies-joy-after-27613873] Why now? Are these heart stories and ads specifically designed to deflect the growing number of myocarditis adverse events in the young?
Consider Pfizer’s financial reporting that includes surveys about employee satisfaction and the economic “savings” realized by getting the jab. Why in the world would Pfizer need such puffery when they are reporting record earnings? What do they know that investors do not? [https://investors.pfizer.com/Investors/Financials/Annual-Reports/default.aspx]
Consider the Rockefeller Foundation’s COVID-19 efforts. “As global Covid-19 vaccine supply stabilizes, overcoming demand challenges is the next hurdle to protect the world’s most vulnerable from severe illness. To boost vaccination rates and improve global health equity, The Rockefeller Foundation is working with in-country partners to gain knowledge, share insights, and create more demand for vaccines in communities with low vaccination rates.” [https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/initiative/global-vaccination-initiative/] You catch that: “…to protect the most vulnerable.” Yet their goal is to “create more demand for vaccines,” not healthcare or saving lives.
Consider Event 201, a “high-level pandemic exercise” conducted on October 18, 2019. [Event 201, a pandemic exercise to illustrate preparedness efforts (centerforhealthsecurity.org)] It was an exercise to discuss how public and private institutions would react to a severe pandemic which would require “reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.” This involved the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/about] What did they do? They modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic back in 2019. Yes, 2019 — you read that correctly. Was this a group with vested interests on the march? Was it randomly prescient and foreshadowing of events to come? Was this an effort to accelerate a mass formation event? That is no longer crazy talk.
What else are the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), GAVI the Vaccine Alliance, and the World Health Organization up to? The Gates Foundation invested $750 million to help found GAVI in 1999 in order to identify, qualify and close vaccine deals with pharmaceutical companies specifically to target low-income countries. [How Bill Gates and his partners took over the global Covid pandemic response – POLITICO] Collectively these groups have spent over $10 billion fighting COVID, including spending $8.3 million to lobby lawmakers around the world. CEPI’s efforts to lobby the U.S. were successful, and $500 million was put in the proposed U.S. budget. [IBID]
Four groups, working with the World Health Organization, played a central role in creating an initiative known as the Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator, or ACT-A, which focuses on securing and delivering tests, treatments and vaccine doses to poor, underserved countries across the world. [https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/about] See what is going on here? We are bad people if we do not support vaccinating poor people with experimental drugs, if we question the trial data, if dissent.
ACT-A missed its delivery goals for 2021 on all three fronts — for testing, vaccine distribution and treatments. [ACT-Accelerator Strategic Review (who.int)] So what do you do if you are off plan? You advertise, promote, and lobby to push product. If you miss your goals, you retool and focus on your next effort. Did you know that in the U.S. administration, originating from the White House, is considering a $65 billion budget to enable a better respond to another pandemic, another infectious disease outbreak. But that strategy is rolling out slowly, officials say, as the administration works to combat monkeypox. That should put a little fear in you – monkeypox. Maybe the administration can get the media behind it, float out some horrific pictures, and start a new cycle. Does that sound familiar?
Here is the thing, they are not just off on their projections, they are way off. People are seeing the ever-increasing risk associated with jabs, so fewer want jabs. One may reasonably expect that more will be spent on advertising, promotion, and lobbying to protect their investment. And so they are, “in Germany, the Gates Foundation spent about $5.73 million in 2021 lobbying to increase support for the global vaccine effort. Wellcome similarly spent significant amounts of money in Germany — nearly $1 million.” [How Bill Gates and his partners took over the global Covid pandemic response – POLITICO] Why would they need to do that at this late date if the jab works and actually protects one from getting and spreading COVID-19?
Keep in mind the focus back then, back in the early days of the pandemic, was driven by a lack of supply. Countries could not get the jab. Today, with a growing number of people realizing the jab is causing significant adverse events, the pharmaceutical companies and governments pushing the jab have a new problem — the ever-increasing lack of demand. People are beginning to see the damage done. That includes investors. Pfizer’s stock is down twenty percent in 2022 in spite of reporting record earnings. Folks are no longer buying what is being sold.
Regardless, you can expect a full-on promotion of the jab and jab boosters. The target? Remember Desmet’ s three groups mentioned above? They are targeting the middle, those who are not paying attention because the jab has been inconvenient but not catastrophic. What me worry?
The game is afoot now, especially in the context of behavioral economics, mass formation, and propaganda. You can trust Bill Gates, right? “Bill Gates, speaking to the press, said several times that Covid was on the decline and that money should be directed toward creating tools like next-generation vaccines to fight the next pandemic.” [How Bill Gates and his partners took over the global Covid pandemic response – POLITICO] Of course, Gates wants to promote that view. According to Gates himself, there is very good money in this game. It turns out his “best investment,” turning $10 billion into $200 billion, was his investment in “global health organizations” focused on increasing access to what? To vaccines. [Bill Gates turns $10 billion into $200 billion worth of economic benefit (cnbc.com)] Good money, really good money.
And it is not just Bill Gates. CEPI lobbied Senators Patty Murray (D-Washington) and Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) to pass the Prevent Pandemics Act which has stalled but lays out how the U.S. should approach funding efforts to prepare for the next large-scale infectious disease outbreak. [How Bill Gates and his partners took over the global Covid pandemic response – POLITICO] In Europe, the GAVI organization requested an additional $5.2 billion to “help millions of vulnerable people get vaccinated.” Did you get that? “Help” “vulnerable” people get vaccinated. Shockingly, they apparently have $4.8 billion in commitments. [IBID] Are you ready for some propaganda? Are you ready to be castigated as one who does not choose to “help” the “vulnerable,” especially those who do not want “help.”
HOW DO WE SAVE OURSELVES?
We have been denied prophylactic protection from the therapeutics like ivermectin. We have been lied to. We have been intentionally misled by those using some insidious psychological techniques as discussed above. How do we fight the tsunami of unwanted information that is intentionally pushed upon us to get us to act in ways that very clearly work against our self-interest? There are several things we can do.
- Find at least one other like-minded person in the target group. One other person will keep you from being on an island.
- Target the mindless middle with the approach being used to use them and persuade one a day to open his or her mind. Point out that just because their world has not been turned upside down that many other lives have been ruined. It is past time to join the collective trying to protect children, the elderly, everyone from getting jabbed.
- Target one or more leaders. Do not let them off the hook. Shame them if necessary. Neither your primary care physician nor your County Commissioner, for example, have not likely read the Pfizer clinical trial data or are aware it was set to be sealed for 75 years. If they recommend getting jabbed, demand they put it in writing over their signature for all the world to see; and then take a pause to see what happens.
- Ask those who demean you by calling you an anti-vaxxer if they are aware of the overwhelming but under-reported VAERS adverse events?
- Ask those who are cancelling you if they aware of the growing number of excess deaths?
- If you have the stomach, ask them to look into the havoc being wrecked upon reproductive systems, especially women’s miscarriage and stillbirth rates.
- Ask all if they are aware the CDC changed the definition of the term “vaccine”? [The CDC Suddenly Changes the Definition of ‘Jab’ and ‘Vaccination’ – Citizens Journal]
- Ask your medical caregivers why they are only interested if you currently are COVID positive. Why are they not interested to know if you have had COVID, had the jabs, or had any boosts? Ask them why they in the world they are not interested in your entire medical history.
- Challenge the orthodoxy. Punch back every time. Just say no – to masks, to social distancing, to forced mandates.
- Look for the psychological behavioral economics and persuasion techniques used to drive you toward collective agreement. You will find them everywhere when you start to look.
- Use their language against them. It is no longer a “vaccine;” it never was a “vaccine”. Pfizer knew it was not a vaccine. the CDC knew it was not a vaccine. So, they changed the definition. [The CDC Suddenly Changes the Definition of ‘Jab’ and ‘Vaccination’ – Citizens Journal] Use clarifying language to help them understand. It is a jab.
- Observe pleas for you and, worse, for your children to take the jab to see if they include informed consent. Why are we just now learning the jab may be deadly? The flawed trials demonstrated that it was dangerous, and they knew it.
- Write your Congressional delegation and insist pharmaceutical advertising be banned as it once was. Stop the propaganda.
- Shame industry folks – whether with the administrative state (NIH, CDC, etc.) or hospital systems and pharmaceutical companies.
- Plant the seeds for a whistleblower to come forward. More and more are coming forward. They see the damage done. They are having trouble sleeping at night. They are on an island. Invite them to your island.
- Shame those who are providing discounts, gifts, or treats to get children jabbed. Be aware that your school system, your grocery store, your pharmacy, and others are likely right in the middle of those efforts. They are right in your face. Boycott the stores, and work to have the school leadership removed.
- If you have not thought deeply about an ethical standard, do so now. Get right with God. People who do are incredibly resilient. [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.]
In Desmet’ s book, he cites Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and the remarkable story of Grigory Ivanovich Grigoryev who not only survived the gulag but a Nazi concentration camp as well. How did Grigoryev survive such evil? Solzhenitsyn’s observation was that Grigoryev’s honesty and nobility enabled him to withstand what others, most others, could not. For example, he uniquely would not steal another prisoner’s food when the opportunity arose. Grigoryev’s ethical behavior was practiced openly among the prisoners. He refused unethical work requests at the cost of severe beatings. Solzhenitsyn thought it was this overt “spiritual purity” this “psychological purity” that shielded Grigoryev from common fatal gulag diseases like rheumatism and typhus. Spiritual purity matters, especially when the wave of propaganda is crashing around you. [Desmet, Mattias. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green, 2022.]
Do you know a whistleblower, a doctor, a nurse, an emergency responder, a teacher, or others who have lost their livelihoods because of dissent? I do. Like Grigoryev they are the heroes. They are the ones we should admire.
Begin today to make decisions based upon your effort to achieve a humble, personal spiritual purity, your ethical standard, your personal sovereignty, and not those of the artificial culture that you are exposed to each day. Be this guy in the picture below. Be August Landmesser. [https://allthatsinteresting.com/august-landmesser] Be prepared to suffer. However, also be prepared to look in the mirror and be thankful for what you see. For that is how you will be remembered.
One of our country’s most important freedoms is that of free speech.
Agree with this essay? Disagree? Join the debate by writing to DailyClout HERE.