You're manipulated primarily by tricks of context and emphasis, not outright lies. This strategy is cheaper for mass media to sustain, and just as effective.
Curious if anyone, anywhere has given a valid scientific explanation as to how the flu magically disappeared (9 months after hard lockdowns ended) and right at the time of vaccine rollout, only to magically reappear the following year again? How does Influenza know to take a year off, and only the year of mass experimental vaccination on the global population?
One outright lie was reporting positive tests as new infections.
Most people underestimate the role of the populace itself in its manipulation by this new church. Most people lead extremely boring lives and crave for any kind of entertainment. This entertainment is the main product of the media.
A very consistent seller of media is hatred. When I was in my 20s I regularly read Der Spiegel. Eventually I became so fed up by the feeling of hatred (against the rich, the police, evil white males etc) I always felt after reading it that I became suspicious and after some reflection realized that all these articles were structured in an identical way to incite hatred in the reader for maximum effect, i.e. a feeling of brutal injustice paired with a feeling of absolute powerlessness. It wasnt very hard to find this kind of hate mongering in pretty much every other political media outlet or TV station independent of its political leaning, of course with varying proficiency.
What does it to a person who never takes a step back and reflects about his or her relationship to the media after decades of exposure to this constant hate mongering? It's simple: it leads to a deep systemic addiction. The person becomes a literal hate junkie, utterly dependend on the hate dealers in the media. Most people who are critical to the media acknowledge the corruption and the bribery but very few understand this extremely strong bond between a large part of western populations and their media which as a result have become a new global church, recklessly exploiting the power given to them by this huge herd of hate addicts.
I don't know what to add other than to emphasize that this strikes me as supremely correct; it should be the rule and measure for sorting through what is true, and what is not:
"Everyone else, including especially our public health authorities, are too diffusely staffed and uncoordinated to sustain lies from whole cloth. They work instead via emphasis and manipulation of context. Rarely is any given press report totally false; it doesn’t need to be. You could incite a panic over any pathogen via selective coverage and anecdotal reporting on tragic virus deaths and overwhelmed hospitals."
If I could add one word, I would add "groupthink." The most intelligent among are still susceptible to social and emotional pressures, the threat of isolation, etc., like any other human being. And in the last 150 years, the West has superseded it's old, healthier institutions with centralized, monopoly ones, which is the formula for corrupting a field and exploiting groupthink tendencies.
As a lawyer (with a linguistics degree too), sometimes it is "fun" to dissect the average media story on any number of topics, from crime, to Russia, to Corona, etc. And the lies surely appear here and there; but the primary observation one will make is that there aren't so much clear, provable lies, so much as there is mis-emphasis, misdirection and use of unreasonable characterizations. The classic example is to take an event the media wants to promote, or decry, and quote the one guy that agrees with the media while ignoring the 10,000 others that don't.
In the medical field, I recommend that skeptical readers pick up Duesberg's 1995 classic, Inventing the AIDS Virus. No, it isn't about inventing HIV, but rather the validity of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, something RFK brought back to the forefront in his late, excellent book on Fauci and Corona. In this book you will see how facts are mishandled, mischaracterized or again, mis-emphasized to reach a certain conclusion; or assumptions are made that aren't properly justifiable using traditional logical rubrics. But there isn't so much in the way of direct falsification (except for the Robert Gallo false sample scandal, which came out, per Eugyppius' point, that it's hard to conceal such things forever).
Implied but unstated is perhaps the greatest weapon of the deceiver -- omission.
The power to ignore is great and terrible.
Great post. Your phrase "obvious stupidity" is right on. Seasoned scientists and physicians have substituted obvious stupidity and political influence for objective evaluation and application of the scientific method. Its really quite shocking to see revered top shelf scientific journals like Lancet and Science (and many others) fall victim to consensus opinion and calling it settled science. Many have lost their way scientifically.
It is true that not everything is fake. PCR tests can be used to detect viruses and they can detect very small amounts of viruses if you run enough cycles. What is fake are the conclusions that that very real data is used to arrive at. The same is true when it comes to climate "science." I don't doubt that it is possible to drill an ice core and test it for CO2 content, or to date a tree ring. What I doubt are the conclusions that are drawn from that data.
The pandemicists are very much like the climatologists in this sense. They are capable of collecting very broad data from which some very rudimentary conclusions can be drawn. However, they then proceed to declare "we know" very specific conclusions that cannot possibly be drawn from the data to hand. It is the wildly absurd claims to knowledge that I mainly have a problem with. And it is my opinion that it is those absurd claims that have undermined trust in science.
And tricks of language.
Example: PCR positive being deemed to be a 'case' and by that wording, identifying a medical problem.
Hundreds of words were weaponised in this way.
Excellent writing eugyppius, well said.
Absolutely on target. Easily my favorite eugyppius article. You have to be not just contrarian, but a true critical thinker to discern who's actually credible. I'd like to think that's how I diverged from the masses regarding Covid during the spring of 2020. And as time has gone on, slowly but surely my sources have been proved right - which comes back to the predictive power of theories that eugyppius is talking about.
Excellent, not just because I totally agree, but a great, pointed summary of your case. As someone who works in one of the lower parts of the government borg you describe (acadrmia), I can confirm your accuracy of description of what is going on.
As someone who spent the last few years of my medical technologist career in the Covid trenches cranking out a never ending stream of high cycle threshold EUA PCR ‘yes/no’ results to incurious health professionals sans context, I agree whole heartedly to this blog post!
"The blunt truth is that Western States are massively powerful, and being stupid and heavy handed is a luxury they can afford." Thank you Prime Minister Trudeau.
Wise words again. I like the rational take you have on this (and the fact that it coincides with mine). The big con has been achieved with the compromised leading people in key organisations who were placed there in advance.
In Finland a doctor that sees a natural Vitamin-D3 status in a person will see it as high because their thought processes are subservient to higher authority. They have been conditioned to believe what they were taught, not what they have experienced or learnt.
The truth is that the PCR tests with the correct primers would be a reasonable tool to monitor the prevalence of this current virus, however it is ill suited for determining case counts and if legacy influenza primers were deliberately or hastily used it would have had inflated covid numbers and would explain the depressed influenza numbers. I heard somewhere that the Chinese are major providers of lateral flow home tests and they may also provide or manufacture PCR consumables. If they are party to deliberate fraud we would not hear anything about it now or later, they are much better at destroying notebooks and much worse at freedom of Information requests.
Excellent commentary. You have presented in a clear manner something I have much less articulately attempted to explain to friends since the very beginning of History's Deadliest Pandemic™ of the World's Deadliest Virus™.
Having worked in a federal bureaucracy, I have for years tried to explain to people how these organizations utterly lack the competence to create the kind of sleek, perfectly executed planning/surveillance/tactical scenarios we see in the movies and that they apparently believe are realistic depictions of government agency operations.
I get your point, and yes, good psy-ops always include reliable information with the false sprinkled in. PCR was the driver of the pandemic, and without it, they could not have sustained the illusion of a dangerous virus covering the globe. Which was patently false. Covered in link below, data Denis Rancourt's been analyzing clearly proves that. So while technically it may produce some 'good' data, in the context in which is was (ab)used, for me, throws the whole thing out. Why would I sift through PCR data to find some 'real' info when its whole purpose was to prop up and justify a crime? That's playing their game - keeping us distracted and in the weeds, while they move forward with next phase.
I agree with your comments here, and I know you wrote your last post in good faith. I've been myself in that position once when I argued that not every result of those assays appear at a high cycle of amplification (even though the core problem is not the amplification cycle or in some instances the lack of internal ''positive'' control, you just can't accurately detect an active infection with the technique, but I digress). I want to give you some minor constructive criticism. Even though you introduced some caveats in your last piece, the title for example lacked nuance given the importance of the matter. Some c19 loyalist could easily read, ''You see? P C R positives have c19, they are finally admitting it!''...which was not the case... Probably something more on the line of ''P C R assays (can) give real results for certain applications'', or ''The usefulness of P C R assays for... '' would have been better... Just some ideas. Thanks for your work.