Culture Of Fear Leads To Distrust
It’s no secret that our Establishment/Deep State has cultivated a culture of fear in America. Fear of viral infection by ‘the other’, fear of white people, fear of ‘extremists’. The list could be extended. The point, as in all authoritarian efforts, is to break down the bonds of social trust. If the subject population fear and distrust one another, they won’t be nearly as likely to unite against the rulers. In all this the media have eagerly cooperated—and are doubling down. Google and Youtube are instituting new bans on ‘disinformation.’ As they define it, or as the rulers suggest they define it.
The good news is that, as we pointed out earlier today—New Disasters In Zhou's Polling—the populace appears to be catching on and is increasingly focusing its distrust on the rulers.
First a series of tweets that reflect where we stand, leading with the new bans on truth telling—obvious the old rules and old bans just aren’t working the way they were intended to, thus the need to double down:
And a practical example of how far that concept of ‘disinformation’ actually extends in reality—as well as the MSM’s self-censorship:
Where has the ban on truth had its greatest effect? Gallup has quantified it, and it skews heavily leftward. Yesterday we noted NY’s high priestess/governess Kathy Hochul’s smear contrasting the unvaxxed with herself and the other “smart people.” Turns out they’re not so smart:
More commentary on the Gallup findings:
But, as noted earlier this morning, here’s the encouraging news—they’re no longer able to fool most of the people any of the time:
Moreover, it’s filtering out to the great unwashed, in pop culture and sports. The now famous chant of F*ck Zhou Baidan is becoming a weekend ritual across the country. Celebrities and sports stars are standing up:
OK. Last night in the comments we saw a fascinating study by seven international scientists that attempted to quantify the risk/benefit of vaxxing versus not vaxxing. (Whoever the commenter was, you know who you are, so feel free to take credit again in the comments.) The study is buttressed by official statistics—despite systematic statistical obfuscation of the reality of the Covid ‘pandemic.’ Since the study is methodologically and statistically dense, I’ll confine excerpts to more general, conclusory statements:
First I quote from a discussion of the study:
The authors conclude that there have been at most 35,000 Covid deaths in the US so far, not over 600,000. Because “94 % of the reported deaths had multiple comorbidities”. What could well be over 600,000 is the number of Covid vaccine deaths. Registered VAERS vaccine deaths currently are 14,925.
Basically, they leave nothing standing of the mass vaccination, the vaccine passports, QR codes, none of it. They call the vaccines “treatments” because they don’t comply with the 2000 definition of a vaccine from the U.S. Patent Office, which states “The immune response produced by a vaccine must be more than merely some immune response but must be protective”. They also state that even in the high-risk group of people over 65, the vaccines kill 5 times more people than Covid.
The reason I come back to this -again- is that reports like this, critical of official vaccine policies, and certainly not just in the US, receive no media attention at all. Crickets. ...
My question is at what point do the politicians and journalists that run this show cease to be accomplices to murder? Because that is what is happening here. And there will be a moment when people find this out. What will they all have to say then?
I can only give you some bits and pieces from the report, it’s exhaustive, and has more sources than any one person could probably read in a whole year. The conclusion:“It is unclear why this mass inoculation for all groups is being done, being allowed, and being promoted.”
That’s the bottom line, but it’s worth quoting from the actual study:
First the highlights:
Highlights
• Bulk of COVID-19 per capita deaths occur in elderly with high comorbidities.
• Per capita COVID-19 deaths are negligible in children.
• Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term.
• Clinical trials did not address long-term effects most relevant to children.
• High post-inoculation deaths reported in VAERS (very short-term).
Next, from the conclusion:
5. Overall conclusions
The people with myriad comorbidities in the age range where most deaths with COVID-19 occurred were in very poor health. Their deaths did not seem to increase all-cause mortality as shown in several studies. If they hadn't died with COVID-19, they probably would have died from the flu or many of the other comorbidities they had. We can't say for sure that many/most died from COVID-19 because of: 1) how the PCR tests were manipulated to give copious false positives and 2) how deaths were arbitrarily attributed to COVID-19 in the presence of myriad comorbidities.
The graphs presented in this paper indicate that the frail injection recipients receive minimal benefit from the inoculation. Their basic problem is a dysfunctional immune system, resulting in part or in whole from a lifetime of toxic exposures and toxic behaviors. They are susceptible to either the wild virus triggering the dysfunctional immune system into over-reacting or under-reacting, leading to poor outcomes or the injection doing the same.
…
The injection goes two steps further than the wild virus because 1) it contains the instructions for making the spike protein, which several experiments are showing can cause vascular and other forms of damage, and 2) it bypasses many front-line defenses of the innate immune system to enter the bloodstream directly in part. …, the spike protein and the surrounding LNP are toxins with the potential to cause myriad short-, mid-, and long-term adverse health effects even in the absence of other contributing factors! Where and when these effects occur will depend on the biodistribution of the injected material. Pfizer’s own biodistribution studies have shown the injected material can be found in myriad critical organs throughout the body, leading to the possibility of multi-organ failure. And these studies were from a single injection. Multiple injections and booster shots may have cumulative effects on organ distributions of inoculant!
The COVID-19 reported deaths are people who died with COVID-19, not necessarily from COVID-19. Likewise, the VAERS deaths are people who have died following inoculation, not necessarily from inoculation.
As stated before, CDC showed that 94 % of the reported deaths had multiple comorbidities, thereby reducing the CDC's numbers attributed strictly to COVID-19 to about 35,000 for all age groups. Given the number of high false positives from the high amplification cycle PCR tests, and the willingness of healthcare professionals to attribute death to COVID-19 in the absence of tests or sometimes even with negative PCR tests, this 35,000 number is probably highly inflated as well.
...
Additionally, VAERS historically has under-reported adverse events by about two orders-of-magnitude, so COVID-19 inoculation deaths in the short-term could be in the hundreds of thousands for the USA for the period mid-December 2020 to the end of May 2021, potentially swamping the real COVID-19 deaths. Finally, the VAERS deaths reported so far are for the very short term. We have no idea what the death numbers will be in the intermediate and long-term; the clinical trials did not test for those.
The clinical trials used a non-representative younger and healthier sample to get EUA for the injection. Following EUA, the mass inoculations were administered to the very sick (and first responders) initially, and many died quite rapidly. However, because the elderly who died following COVID-19 inoculation were very frail with multiple comorbidities, their deaths could easily be attributed to causes other than the injection (as should have been the case for COVID-19 deaths as well).
Now the objective is the inoculation of the total USA population. Since many of these potential serious adverse effects have built-in lag times of at least six months or more, we won't know what they are until most of the population has been inoculated, and corrective action may be too late.
That should be mindblowing.
This morning Karl Denninger addresses similar considerations that arise from a CDC study of Covid in a federal prison population: CDC Beclowns All Mandates. Once again the results—and these results are despite what could be called an uncritical acceptance of CDC assumed data—show conclusively that the risk/benefit analysis simply doesn’t support the current mandates.
Follow the link for the details, but for our purposes I just want to quote KD’s bottom line, which is similar to my own. KD is no Pollyanna, nor am I. He is putting his hope in the courts. I believe that makes sense because the facts as we are coming to know them with increasing clarity are on our side:
Biden's position, and that of the Federal Government, is unsupportable on both the facts and the law.
There is no debate on the facts when those arguing for mandates prove with their own claims and data that their argument is unsupportable both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. A viable disagreement to be submitted to a court requires that a trier of fact have some set of facts in dispute. The CDC, an organ of the government itself, has admitted there are no facts in dispute; the vaccines are ineffective and are, on their own data, more harmful than the infection in a large percentage of the population. The public health argument thus fails on its first premise.
We are either a nation bound by law or we are not. If we are not, and the government and judiciary so-declare they must understand that this declaration means exactly what you think it might.
It feels eerily like what I imagine patriots in 1773 felt. The inexorable drift and pull toward revolution. All attempts at peaceful redress directed to the King and Parliament being rebuffed, the colonial authorities increasingly demanding absolute obedience even while depriving colonists of their rights. Voices of calm growing fainter and more feeble. We hope for a way out short of revolt but increasingly see no alternatives offered.
Not sure what to make of him, but that Ohio attorney Thomas Renz just publicized a lot of data based on more than one whistleblower's access to the CMMS databases. He's suing the CDC and others. His claim is he's "got them dead to rights". He also claims he has affidavits of two nurses that work in a hospital that treat incoming vaccinated patients for covid using Ivermectin, while treating unvaccinated patients, also with covid, with Remdesivir and ventilators with predictable results.
https://rumble.com/vn12v1-attorney-thomas-renz-we-got-them.-fact-check-this-all-new-whistleblower-inf.html
I'd be interested in other readers takes on this man and the usefulness of what he's uncovered.