Covid Psyop

For the whole duration of the psyop, media sites and outlets have been flooding the public with a constant deluge of decontextualized numbers of alleged infections, hospitalizations and casualties; even without questioning their credibility, this represents by itself a clear form of psychological manipulation: the complete lack of any context, or frame of reference makes it impossible for a layman to judge the actual severity of the situation by those numbers alone; since no figure-spamming of this kind has ever been conducted for previous epidemics, the vast majority of people can only rely on their narrow unrepresentative personal experience, compared to which any kind of large-scale statistic will necessarily appear dramatically higher than normal (even in cases when it's actually lower).

The Covid narrative consistently presented the Covid pandemic as one of the deadliest pandemics in history, and its consequences as a sanitary emergency of a magnitude never seen before, such to justify the radical measures in place. This narrative relies on the public's ignorance about several other past cases of sanitary crisis that, despite being of comparable (when not even worse) magnitude, still were never accompanied by a similar level of mass panic, and still managed to be overcome without reliance to such extreme measures.
Exhibit: Cases of overcrowded hospitals years before Covid even existed, but with no generalized panic
Exhibit: The 1957 influenza pandemic.
Exhibit: The Hong Kong flu.

During the course of the crisis, countless protests have raged all over the world to dissent against the government propaganda and restrictive measures; despite the enormous participation, these protests have been almost completely ignored by mainstream media. This omission is particularly grave because these protests represent by themselves a crushing falsification of basically every point of the official Covid narrative; it is important to remember the Covid pandemic has been sold by mainstream sources as a pandemic so deadly that even a single person walking alone on a deserted road might represent a lethal danger; therefore, the very existence of massive gathering of people violating basically every single one of those measures with no noticeable changes in the overall number of infections, hospitalization or casualties, is by itself enough to conclusively disprove both the alleged efficacy of all those measures, and the alleged danger represented by the pandemic.
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings

All mainstream media have been unanimously pushing the narrative of an almost universal consensus of the scientific community about the severity of the pandemic, and about the efficacy/safety of the propagandized containment measures; this narrative, however, does not hold to scrutiny; since the beginning of the pandemic, basically every single tenet of the official narrative has been vehemently opposed by thousands of experts (ranging from simple healthcare operators to top-level Noble Prizes), as well as explicitly refuted by dozens of scientific studies (most of which peer-reviewed and published in important journals).
Exhibit: Dozens of experts issued and signed a declaration opposing the mainstream narrative surrounding Covid and related countermeasures.
Exhibit: The World Doctors Alliance calls for the end of the anti-pandemic measures.
Exhibit: The World Council for Health calls for a stop on WHO's Pandemic Treaty.
Exhibit: A study from the Aarhus University concludes that lockdown measures had no effect in reducing mortality.
Exhibit: A study published on medrxiv concludes that lockdown measures had no effect in reducing mortality.
Exhibit: Several scientific studies conclude that face-masks are neither safe nor effective method to limit the spread of infection.
Exhibit: An article published by the British Medical Journal warns that vaccines are being pushed without an accurate risk/benefit ratio analysis.
Exhibit: A study published on SSRN concludes that risk/benefit ratio analysis is strongly against vaccine mandates.
Exhibit: A study published on the British Medical Journal finds a correlation between Covid vaccination and myocarditis.
Exhibit: A study published on ResearchGate finds a correlation between vaccination campaigns and excess mortality.
Exhibit: A study published on Trends in Molecular Medicine finds a possible mechanism behind Covid vaccines' side effects.
Exhibit: A study published on PubMed concludes that Covid RNA can indeed be integrated into a host's DNA.
Exhibit: A study published on MDPI concludes that mRNA in Pfizer vaccine can indeed be integrated into a host's DNA.
Exhibit: A study published on the European Journal of Immunology concludes that natural immunity for Covid lasts longer than the vaccine-acquired one.
Exhibit: A study published on PLOS Biology concludes that vaccination with non-sterilizing vaccine can cause the emergence of more virulent strains.
Exhibit: A study published on PubMed concluded that several non approved treatments (including Hydroxychloroquine and Vitamin D) proved to be highly effective against Covid.
Exhibit: A huge amount of scientific studies have been conducted upon several non approved Covid treatments (including but not limited to: Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectine and much more...); of these studies, a striking majority concludes their effectiveenss in either preventing the insurgence of Covid, reducing its symptoms, or healing the disease.
Exhibit: A study by researchers from MIT implies that people who oppose the official stance about Covid understand and follow scientific method better than those who believe it.
The bottom line: Contrary to mainstream media claim, there has never been any real "consensus of experts" about the danger of Covid nor about the efficacy/safety of the anti-Covid policies. The "experts agree" narrative is a complete mediatic fabrication.

The Covid ideology explicitly places authority above both reason and evidence; any kind of information that does not confirm the doctrinal stance on Covid is regularly rejected on the sole basis of not coming from arbitrarily chosen "credible sources" (who are often circularly chosen on the basis of their compliance to the doctrine itself), rather than on the basis of methodological flaws. This is the most fundamental violation of the scientific method and by itself qualifies the Covid cult as a religion and a form of pseudoscience.

The Covid psyop saw a very limited group of experts and institutions (Anthony Fauci, WHO, CDC, etc.) being unexplicably appointed as the sole and ultimate authorities on everything regarding Covid, on unclear or questionable scientific merits, with zero regards to possible (or even confirmed) biases or conflicts of interests, and with the complete dismissal of any other voice (even coming from equally or more qualified professionals), in complete disregard of the open debate among experts that is crucial to the development of actual science, and more akin to the way a religious sect works.

Since the start of the alleged pandemic, there has been a massive effort to marginalize and discredit any voice going contrary to the party line issued by the WHO and WHO-aligned media; this is a direct attack against science, since it discourages falsification (which is one of the main principles of the scientific method) and distorts the debate inside the scientific community preventing the emergence of a genuine consensus: if experts are not free to voice their findings and are instead forced to go along a pre-determined line, what follows cannot be the real consensus of the experts, much less "science" (even in the case the enforced view was derived from the input of actual scientists).
A particularly grave case of intimidation is the California's assembly bill no.2098 chapter 938 which, under the guise of preventing the spread of "disinformation", urges healthcare professionals to stop voicing their professional dissent to the public; this case is especially revealing because it shows how, contrary to their "trust the experts" dogma, goverment officials and mass-media outlets (neither of which are qualified to issue health advices) are attempting to shut down actually qualified people (such as healthcare professionals) and to dictate science in their place.

The "scientific" basis for the vast majority of the restrictive measures consisted of no more than 1 single study, a predictive mathematical model developed by Neil Ferguson from the Imperial College of London (Exhibit); despite the lack of corroborating evidence and confirmatory studies, this model has been immediately promoted as "settled science" and arbitrarily set as the basis for the containment measures of countless sanitary institutions around the world with no discussion nor scrutiny, in complete disregard to the principles of both scientific method and sanitary precaution. Even worse, this study kept being used even after being spectacularly and conclusively disproven by evidence, turning it from mere "bad science" to downright criminal fraud.

In many cases, the only criteria required for counting the death of a person as a Covid casualty is the mere suspect that the Covid virus might be responsible, even in absence of a direct confirmation about the cause of death, sometimes even going as far as counting as "Covid casualty" every person who tested positive at the time of death. This is downright statistical/medical fraud, and means that the official statistics about the number of Covid deaths are completely unreliable, even more so when considering that the vast majority of alleged "Covid casualties" were among people who were either very old, or already affected by other serious diseases (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) which might have been the most likely cause.
Exhibit: CDC declares that "COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death".
Exhibit: The president of Germany's Robert Koch Institute admits "We consider a corona death to be someone who has been diagnosed with a coronavirus infection.”
Exhibit: The Scientific Advisor of Italy's Ministry of Health admits "All the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.”
Exhibit: Miscounting of Covid deaths.

Health authorities often advised against conducting autopsies on the bodies of people who allegedly died from Covid. This precludes the possibility of obtaining a scientific confirmation of the cause of deaths, and contributes to the persistence of unreliable statistics.
Exhibit: Germany's Robert Koch Institute advises against autopsies of Covid-positive bodies.

In statistics, baselines are used to determine the "normal" level of a specific indicator in order to detect variations from normal trends; for this reasons, exceptional variations from the norm, by definition should never be included into its calculation. This is exactly the kind of statistical fraud committed by certain studies developed in order to "debunk" the many reports of increased deaths from vaccine side effects: the baseline is artificially raised by including the exceptional peak of deaths happened in the first months of the pandemic, in this way the eventual increase in subsequent deaths is hidden.

In cases where a great number of people die in a very short time because of some extraordinary event, the general mortality levels are inevitably decreased in the immediate afterwards because the deaths who would've normally happened in this period were anticipated by the event. Such a situation is analogous to what happened during the Covid crisis: the sudden death of a great number of mostly old people in the first few months inherently resulted in a decrese of the natural mortality in the immediately subsequent months and years, and this temporary decrease in natural deaths acts as a convenient "hole" to hide artificially caused ones. After the emergency was declared over, many statisticians and alleged "fact-checkers" attempted to debunk the evidences of increased mortality caused by vaccine side-effects by directly comparing the post-Covid mortality levels to the pre-Covid ones, which is a statistical fallacy for the reason explained.

Since the beginning, critics demanded an explaination for the countless fatal problems (methodological flaws, self-contradictions, double standards, failed predictions, suspicious patterns, collateral damages, etc.) that arised in the official pandemic narrative; the mainstream addressed these problems by relying on lazy ad-hoc speculations concocted on the spot and immediately accepted by mere virtue of their apparent plausibility, with no adherence to any rigorous standard of scientific investigation. Typical examples are:
- (Why are the restrictive measures not working?) -> "Surely it's because people are not properly complying with them!"
- (Why do some states with very lax restrictions have equal or even less deaths than those with stricter ones?) -> "Surely those states are not reporting the deaths correctly!" or "Surely the citizens of those states have been much more compliant!"
- (If Covid is so dangerous, why are cases not catastrophically rising despite countless mass-gatherings of unmasked and unvaccinated people?) -> "Surely it's because they're being contained by the majority of people who are properly complying!"
- (Why are we counting all deaths *with* Covid as deaths "from" Covid when it is a well-known fact that most casualties are from people with severe underlying conditions?) -> "Surely they wouldn't have died if Covid didn't gave them the final "little push"!"
- (Why aren't we making autopsies to better determine the cause of death?) -> "Making autopsies could be dangerous for health operators!"
In absence of any real scientific follow-up for these answers, they cannot count as proper scientific explainations, but only as lazy dismissive excuses or, at best, wild speculations.

The Covid cult is tacitally based upon the premise that life (intended as the mere perpetuation of biological functions) is the highest value in order of importance, or even the *sole* value worth defending, to the point that any sacrifice (no matter how great) is acceptable in order to increase someone's chances survival (no matter how small); this dogma goes against basic logic, morality and common sense: since every common activity can increase the chances of death, if applied rigorously it would necessarily imply the complete denial of every form of freedom, to such an extent to make life itself almost impossible.

The Covid cult makes no distinction between the death of an elder and the death of a youngster; while this could sound like a meaningless or even heartless distinction, it is actually a crucial one because that's what makes it possible to distinguish between a "natural death" and an innatural one, and therefore between a sad but natural/inevitable outcome, and what deserves to be called a *tragedy* instead.

In several occasions, the Covid propaganda stigmatized non-compliant people (especially the unvaccinated ones) on the grounds that they would "steal hospital beds" from other people, were they to get sick with Covid; the implicit premise is that only people who have no responsibility for their own illness should have the right to be cured. However, it is easy to see that if this principle were to be applied rigorously, it would exclude not just the unvaccinated, but the vast majority of people, since basically every disease is at least partially caused by the affected's behavior; just to make some examples, the vast majority of people suffering by one of the following conditions should be denied proper care:
- injuries from accidents
- any kind of infections
- food intoxications
- cardiovascular diseases
- cancers
and much, much more. It is easy to see why this principle has never been applied before, being inherently outlandish by any moral and/or sanitary standard.