COVID19: ‘They’ Don’t Care About Us
While issues like climate change and economic growth may be difficult to fully grasp and unravel, direct threats to our lives &/or livelihoods are much more concrete and something we can react to and resist.
Such immediate and direct threats are now fully in play and, once again, they’re accompanied by narratives that are completely at odds with each other. I’m speaking of Covid and the ways in which our national and global managers are choosing to respond (or not).
It’s a truly incoherent mess about which both social media and the increasingly irrelevant media are working quite hard to misinform us.
The mainstream narrative about Covid-19, in the West, is this:
- It’s a quite deadly and novel disease
- There are no effective treatments
- Sadly, no double-blind placebo controlled trials exist to support some of the wild claims out there about various off-patent, cheap and widely available supplements and drugs
- Health authorities care about saving lives
- They care so much, in fact, that along with politicians they’ve decided to entirely shut down economies
- There’s a huge second wave rampaging across the US and Europe and there’s nothing we can do to limit it except shut down businesses and people’s ability to travel and gather
- You need to fear this virus and its associated disease
- All we can do is wait for a vaccine
The alternative narrative, one that I’ve uncovered after 9 months of almost daily research and reporting, is this:
- It’s not an especially dangerous disease and it’s certainly not novel
- There is a huge assortment of very effective, cheap and widely-available preventatives and treatments including (but not limited to)
- Vitamin D
- Ivermectin
- Hydroxychloroquine
- Zinc
- Selenium
- Famotidine (Pepcid)
- Melatonin
- Use of a combination of these mostly OTC supplements could reasonably be expected to drop the severity of illness and the already low mortality rate by 90% or (probably) more
- Western health authorities have shown either zero interest in the results of studies mainly conducted in poorer nations on these combination therapies or…
- They have actively run studies designed to fail so that these cheap, effective therapies could be dismissed or…
- Set up proper studies but which started late, have immensely long study periods and most likely won’t be done before a vaccine is hastily rushed through development.
By the way – every single one of my assertions and claims is backed by links and supporting documentation from scientific and clinical trials and studies. I am not conjecturing here; I am recounting the summary of ten months’ worth of inquiry.
The conclusion I draw from my narrative (vs. theirs) is that we can no longer assume that the public health or saving lives has anything to do with explaining or understanding the actions of these health “managers” (I cannot bring myself to use the word authorities).
After we eliminate the impossible – which is that somehow these massive, well-funded bodies have missed month after month of accumulating evidence in support of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, NAC, zinc, selenium and doxycycline/azithromycin – what remains must be the truth.
As improbable as it seems, the only conclusion we’re left with is that the machinery of politics, money and corporate psychopathy is suppressing life saving treatments because these managers have other priorities besides public health and saving lives.
This is a terribly difficult conclusion, because it means suspending so much that we hold dear. Things like the notion that people are basically good. The idea that the government generally means well. The thought that somehow when the chips are down and a crisis is afoot, good will emerge and triumph over evil.
I’m sorry to say, the exact opposite of all of that has emerged as true.
Medical doctors in the UK NHS system purposely used toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine far too late in the disease cycle to be of any help simply to ‘make a point’ about hydroxychloroquine. They rather desperately wanted that drug to fail, so they made it fail.
After deliberately setting their trial up for failure, they concluded: “Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help, and it even makes things worse.”
Note that in order to be able to make this claim, they had to be willing to cause harm — even to let people die. What kind of health official does that?
Not one who actually has compassion, a heart, or functioning level of sympathy. It’s an awful conclusion but it’s what remains after we eliminate the impossible.
Getting Past The Emotional Toll
Science has proven that cheap, safe and significantly protective compounds exist to limit both Covid-related death and disease severity.
Yet all of the main so-called health authorities in the major western countries are nearly completely ignoring, if not outright banning, these safe, cheap and effective compounds.
This is crazy-making for independent observers like me (and you) because the data is so clear. It’s irrefutable at this point. These medicines and treatments not only work, but work really, really well.
However most people will be unable to absorb the data, let alone move beyond it to wrestle with the implications. Why? Because such data is belief-shattering. Absorbing this information is not an intellectual process; it’s an emotional one.
I don’t know why human nature decided to invest so much in developing a tight wall around the belief systems that control our actions and thoughts. But it has.
I’m sure there was some powerful evolutionary advantage. One that’s now being hijacked daily by social media AI programs to nudge us in desired directions. One that’s being leveraged by shabby politicians, hucksters, fake gurus, and con men to steer advantage away from the populace and towards themselves.
The neural wiring of beliefs is what it is. We have to recognize that and move on.
Some people will be much faster in their adjustment process than others. (Notably, the Peak Prosperity tribe is populated with many fast-adjusters, which is unsurprising given the topics we cover…tough topics tend to attract fast adjusters and repel the rest)
To move past the deeply troubling information laid out before us requires us to be willing to endure a bit of turbulence. It’s the only way.
For you to navigate these troubling times safely and successfully, you’ll need to see as clearly as possible the true nature of the game actually being played. To see what the rules really are – not what you’ve been told they are, or what you wish or hope they are.
The Manipulation Underway
The data above strongly supports the conclusion that our national health managers don’t actually care about public health generally or your health specifically.
If indeed true, then the beliefs preventing most people from accepting this likely include:
- Wanting to believe that people are good (a biggie for most people)
- Trust and faith in the medical system (really big)
- Faith in authority (ginormous)
There are many other operative belief systems I could also list. But this is sufficient to get the ball rolling.
Picking just one, how hard would it be for someone to let go of, say, trust in the medical system?
That would be pretty hard in most cases.
First not trusting the medical system might mean having to wonder if a loved one might have died unnecessarily while being treated. Or realizing that you’re now going to have to research the living daylights out of every medical decision before agreeing to it. Or worrying that your medications might be more harmful to you over the long haul than helpful (which is true in many more cases than most appreciate). It might mean having your personal heroes dinged by suspicion — perhaps even your father or mother who worked in the medical profession. It would definitely require a complete reorientation away from being able to trust anything you read in a newspaper, or see on TV, about new pharmaceutical “breakthroughs”.
Trust, which is safe and warm and comforting, then turns into skepticism; which is lonelier and insists upon active mental involvement.
But, as always, hard work comes with benefits — with a healthy level of skepticism and involvement, the families of those recruited into the deadly UK RECOVERY trial could have looked at the proposed doses of HCQ (2,400 mg on day one! Toxic!) and said, “Not now, not ever!” and maybe have saved the life of their loved one.
Look at that tangled mess of undesirables that comes with unpacking that one belief: regret, uncertainty, shame, doubt, fallen idols, and vastly more additional effort. Are all up for grabs when we decide to look carefully at the actions of our national health managers during Covid.
Which is why most people simply choose not to look. It’s too hard.
I get it. I have a lot of compassion for why people choose not to go down that path. It can get unpleasant in a hurry.
But, just like choosing to ignore a nagging chest pain, turning away in denial has its own consequences.
The Coming ‘Great Reset’
My coverage of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) and Covid-19 (the associated disease) has led me to uncover some things that have made me deeply uncomfortable about our global and national ‘managers’. Shameful things, really. Scary things in their implications for what we might reasonably expect (or not expect, more accurately) from the future.
Once we get past the shock of seeing just how patently corrupt they’ve been, we have to ask both What’s next? and What should I do?
After all, you live in a system whose managers either are too dumb to understand the Vitamin D data (very unlikely) or have decided that they’d rather not promote it to the general populace for some reason. It’s a ridiculously safe vitamin with almost zero downside and virtually unlimited upside.
Either they’re colossally dumb, or this is a calculated decision. They’re not dumb. So we have to ask: What’s the calculation being performed here? It’s not public safety. It’s not your personal health. So… What is it?
This is our line of questioning and observation. It’s like the short story by Arthur Conan Doyle in Silver Blaze that many of us informally know as “the case of the dog that didn’t bark”. As the story goes, because of a missing clue – a dog who remained silent as a murder was committed – this conclusion could be drawn: the dog was already familiar with the killer!
The silence around Vitamin D alone is extremely telling. It is the pharmacological dog that did not bark.
One true inference suggests others. Here, too, we can deduce from the near total silence around Vitamin D that the health managers would prefer not to talk about it. They don’t want people to know. That much is painfully clear.
Such lack of promotion (let alone appropriate study) of safe, effective treatments is a thread that, if tugged, can unravel the whole rug. The silence tells us everything we need to know.
Do they want people to suffer and die? I don’t know. My belief systems certainly hope not. Perhaps the death and suffering are merely collateral damage as they pursue a different goal — money, power, politics? Simply the depressing result of a contentious election year? More than that?
We’ve now reached the jumping off point where we may well find out just how far down the rabbit hole goes.
A massive grab for tighter control over the global populace is now being fast-tracked at the highest levels. Have you heard of the Great Reset yet?
If not, you soon will.
In Part 2: The Coming ‘Great Reset’ we lay out everything we know so far about the multinational proposal to transform nearly every aspect of global industry, commerce, trade, and social structure.
If you read on, be ready and willing to let go of cherished beliefs and to suspend what you know to be true. Because none of us has that in hand. It’s going to be a wild ride from here.
Something very big is afoot and I suspect that Covid-19 is merely an excuse providing cover for a much bigger power grab over the world’s wealth and peoples.
Click here to read Part 2 of this report.
More at www.peakprosperity.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Warren Schaich
| #
Great work against all odds.
Alan
| #
This started with climate change and the narrative is effectively the same as for Covid:
(1) Humans are destroying the planet and all life
(2) Humans must return to living with nature
(3) There is no empirical evidence to show we are changing the climate
(4) Because of (3) there is no evidence to support climate change policies
(5) The climate change policies are destroying our reliable and cheap energy supplies and replacing them with unreliable expensive energy
(6) We must give up everything we have done in the past that results in a better life and decreasing poverty.
The paragraph about the government meaning well was summed up perfectly by Ronald
Reagan when he said something like – the most frightening words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I am here to help”. “They”, the government do care about us. Firstly, they would not have a job without us, and they have ensured that we have bought into the concept that democracy gives us control over them. Democracy is a complete sham; it gives them control over us and now with Covid we willingly let them take away our liberty. The political parties destroy all possibility of democratic voting working for our benefit because they provide a continuing power base for their ideologies. Our votes can enable us to reject politicians we do not like, but the power base is still there. They need us because we are effectively slaves to the system they control. A slave is somebody who works for the benefit of somebody else and one look at state expenditure tells us how much of our efforts they take and control. They are using our money through taxation to buy votes with increasing promises of support, free school meals being a typical example now in the news. The virus is not damaging the world economy, politicians are doing that, and they have managed to convince a majority to comply with a loss of freedom and many are being paid to stay at home doing nothing. No wonder they are complying with this nonsense.
Our belief systems must have changed at some point and they are essentially about risk and uncertainty. We have no written record from our early ancestors, but they faced risk constantly – either not finding enough food, not having shelter from the elements, or being attacked by dangerous animals. If our early ancestors had lived in fear, humans would not have survived. Since they did not have science, they eventually created the idea of gods that controlled what happened and it gave them somebody to blame for their problems. Science now provides the risks we face but we are not satisfied with that. We have entered a new, dangerous stage, and many now believe that we are gods and can control the risks and eliminate them. So, we believe eliminating carbon dioxide emissions will control the climate and save the planet. We believe we can maintain our present standard of living by using unreliable renewable energy sources, the ones we left behind years ago because they kept us in poverty, which is where we will return. We believe we can control a virus by locking ourselves indoors and by some Boris Johnson magic the virus will be “put back in its box”. Our prime minister is a complete moron. Science has evolved slowly but the last 100 years have seen the biggest advances, not just in knowledge, but how it has given us more toys to play with. We are at a stage where our knowledge is so extensive and even the best of us can only know and understand a small part of it. It has become too much to comprehend and so we have left rational thinking behind and replaced it with emotional, virtue signalling nonsense. It is as if the last 100 years of significant advances was just a blip in our god-based belief system that relied on the precautionary principle for decision making. Instead of burning witches we might soon be burning the genuine scientists, or deniers of the new faith.
JaKo
| #
Alan,
Your statement: “If our early ancestors had lived in fear, humans would not have survived.” really deserves more clarification; and I don’t think it is a valid proposition as is.
True, fear can lead to a destructive hysteria; however, it can also lead to a very desirable quality — humility. Therefore, lack of fear is our nemesis, not boundless confidence, especially among the elites.
Cheers, JaKo
Hivemind
| #
This really started with the ‘Ozone Hole’. A couple of years of data, extrapolated out into a global disaster. Turns out, the ozone hole has existed since Antarctica formed and was nothing to do with human-made chemicals.
Tom O
| #
This “article” reads like someone threw a dozen ideas into an AI program designed to put together some sort of artificial flow that rambles on and on saying the same things over and over. You can pick a point, nearly anywhere, read 6 paragraphs and get the same ideas. I read the first 3rd, skimmed the next 3rd and gave up.
Regarding Alan’s comment – I would suspect our distant ancestors did, in fact, live in fear and acted accordingly, recognizing that cowering in a cave did not move them forward in any way. Thus they operated with open mind and open eyes in spite of fear. I would seriously doubt that they “invented gods” because they lacked the great god “science.” In time, in fact, they invented the great god science.
Alan Stewart
| #
In early 1964 (aged 17) I had a routine appendectomy excepting 6 weeks later the scalpel was used to take out the festering flesh they didn’t get out. Needless a medical skeptic was created. What is not taught is that skepticism is GOOD as it is the search for TRUTH.
Cheers everybody
judy Ryan
| #
Another fact that can be added is that, in Australia for example the annual seasonal flue has killed on average between 2,500 and 3,000 every year. This is despite a good proportion of the population having the annual flu shot. This has inspired me to check the annual flue shot data. The research shows that on average it is definitely less 50% accurate. But, I want to find out how many Australians have had the flu shot annually over the last 15 years.
Alder
| #
Judy, good point. 50% ? I asked my GP, was told 60% effectiveness but I infer low confidence. It is the sort of figure that is promulgated by, say, the TDA, on dartboard data.
Another question, does the effectiveness change according to the age of the patient? I got, “No”, but again the tone said- who knows?
And another question, Are there non-medical ingredients in the vaccine that are harmful? Perhaps for packing convenience or as preservative. Valid concerns, but are these ingredients properly evaluated for safety?
Such ingredients are not like plastic packaging to be torn off and discarded, they are pumped into the body.
tom0mason
| #
As government run health schemes become less about keeping EVERYONE as healthy as possible, and becomes more a method of bureaucratic run population control and manipulate program, then the population will became sicker overall. Currently the UK’s NHS, and most European government health schemes, have severely cut back on routine treatments, allowing folk with important but minor heath issues to become significantly worse, or even dying. And all because of a virus that is not that deadly but is widely infectious become the primary determinant of how to run a health service.
The result of this is that the private medical sector will probably grow and that people will increasingly resent paying into public health schemes that deliver so little health care.
So good luck to those European and UK governments that seek to control their populations more with politically and bureaucratically driven propagandizing of illness and infections. In the long run it will become less effective as the growing private medical profession begins to offer better and more effective health care and advice.
To see what the medics in the UK’s NHS think about all this money going into bureaucratic advice and not into clinical virology see https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/10/15/clinical-virologists-have-been-sidelined-in-uk-covid-19-pandemic-response/ from October 15, 2020.
tom0mason
| #
Also see ‘Counting the invisible costs of covid-19: the cancer pandemic published
November 5, 2020′ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/05/counting-the-invisible-costs-of-covid-19-the-cancer-pandemic/
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“While issues like climate change and economic growth may be difficult to fully grasp and unravel…”
They’re easy to comprehend with real science, as opposed to Marxist agitation. In the case of the atmosphere:
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies.
[On March 16 Trump directed the nation to stay home for 15 days(!), his Marxist economic sabotage directive still in play. Immediately following Trump’s directive, governors/mayors declared illegal Executive Orders to lockdown the nation, thereby proving Marxist coordination between Federal/State/Local governments.
No new investments will be taking place because investments require recouping the investments, and with the spectre of the fake COVID-19 returning, or equally fake new pandemics, future lockdowns are in the future, therefore no investments are on the horizon. In short, the United States has been turned into a Banana Republic overnight.]
Nitrogen and oxygen constitute, by volume, 99.03% of the atmosphere’s gasses, while the trace gases account for 0.97%, or just under 1% of the atmosphere’s gasses. If we include water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere, which accounts for, on average, 2% of the atmosphere’s gases by volume, we therefore subtract this 2% from the atmosphere’s gasses, where nitrogen and oxygen will constitute 97.0494%, and the trace gasses will constitute 0.9506%.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
We’re told that Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation, leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
Since nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2 only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s Energy Budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation would only infinitesimally affect this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
Hence why:
THERMODYNAMICS IS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
At my blog, bead the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
In the case of economic growth that’s being sabotaged, again real economic science, as opposed to Marxist agitation:
When interest rates are interfered with, the ‘Productivity Cost of Capital’
(PCC) – an economic law discovered by this researcher – is jeopardized
to the degree that interest rates are debased.[1]
The cost of capital isn’t based on cost – a tautology – it’s based on (1) the
quantity of capital loaned; and (2) the time it takes to pay back the capital
loaned. The cost of capital – interest – depends on the magnitude
borrowed (and time needed to pay back the loan). If one borrows a
capital outlay of X, the cost of X will be less than a capital outlay of
6X, but if a central bank maintains interest rates at the artificially
low X level, there can be no loans for capital outlays between X and 6X.
By implementing low cost interest rates, central banks have set in
motion ruinous price controls on capital, thereby preventing the
employment of capital.
For those who didn’t get the basic Algebra 1
example illustrating the productivity retarding affect of central bank
price controls on interest rates for loaned capital, the following
simplified version should do the trick…
A young boy is at the candy store and hands the retailer a candy bar costing $.95.
The boy decides he wants to buy six candy bars instead, five candy bars more
than one candy bar, so the price is $5.70. The boy tells the retailer he
doesn’t have $5.70, but that he will have the money in three years and
then pay the retailer, with interest for the deferment of payment. The
retailer agrees to the transaction. When the boy returns in three years,
he pays the retailer only $.95! Why did the boy offer only $.95, when
he owed $5.70 plus interest? Because the boy told the retailer that his
father told him there’s no difference between $.95 and $5.70 with
interest!
Capital, an economic good like any other economic good,
isn’t an amorphous quantity that has an intrinsic ‘productivity cost’.
Capital has units – as do candy bars, cars, houses, plots of land, etc. –
hence the cost of 1 unit is less than the cost of >1 units. If the
price for a capital outlay – interest – is below the capital outlay’s
‘productivity cost’, then there can be no deployment of the capital.
[1] Since real prices are always falling thanks to productivity, and inflation masks those price declines, therefore no worldly institution can target anything without error, and the errors will cease when the institution involved stops causing inflation:
For example:
Let’s say inflation for last year was 5%, and productivity increased by 2%. That tells us that inflation for last year was 7%, not 5%, where the 2% decrease in general prices was masked by the central bank caused inflation rate of 7%.
Without a central bank to inflate the currency, there can be no inflation:
(1) If I save more (consume less), the prices of consumption goods decreases, commensurate with the increase of prices of capital goods.
(2) If I consume more (save less), the prices of consumption goods increases, commensurate with the decline in prices of capital goods.
No inflation, and resulting recession/depression, can exist without a central bank.