Remember how the hospitals in New York City were all "overcrowded" (not) in early 2020? Shanghai's fever clinics are all "overcrowded" (not) like that today!
markcrispinmiller.substack.com
Remember how the hospitals in New York City were all "overcrowded" (not) in early 2020? Shanghai's fever clinics are all "overcrowded" (not) like that today!
Just as people throughout China were NOT "dropping dead of COVID in the streets" at the beginning of this nightmare, so are they NOT "overrunning" fever clinics now, despite this "new" Big Lie
Remember how the hospitals in New York City were all "overcrowded" (not) in early 2020? Shanghai's fever clinics are all "overcrowded" (not) like that today!
News from Underground by Mark Crispin Miller is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Iβve lost all faith in all institutions at this point. For example, I completely tuned out the Ukraine thing. Have no idea what itβs about because I donβt trust anything anyone says.
The Chinese listed zero COVID deaths for more than a year. Which is probably true. It's most likely that China is looking at COVID deaths like an insurance company. If you die "with" COVID you didn't die "from" COVID. Say someone died with COVID but dies because of pneumonia, then they didn't die of COVID they died of pneumonia.
Here, in the US, the CDC lists fatalities for the Flu, as "Flu related illnesses." But that's inaccurate as well, because other colds could cause pneumonia (which is usually how Flu deaths occur).
But we do KNOW with 100% certainty that the CDC numbers are total BS, because they literally listed anyone who died with COVID as a "COVID death." Anyone trying to accurately gauge the situation wouldn't do that. The data would be useless.
I'm open to the idea that COVID was faked as a whole. I say that for a few reasons.
1.) The entire therapeutic route was abandoned before there was time to determine if any treatments were working or not. DARPA had data on Ivermectin's effectiveness against multiple types of viral infections, but that was ignored. The data was there the whole time, but you had to know exactly where to look for it. It's on the NIH website.
2.) From my own and other people's anecdotal evidence, the symptoms for COVID didn't make sense. Nearly everyone who tested positive for COVID complained of widely different different symptoms. While different symptoms are possible, they are not probable. Take the Flu for instance. The common symptoms of the Flu are the only reason anyone knows to get tested -- for the Flu. Same with most illnesses. Only COVID had such a wide array of symptoms, often times completely different for people within a household.
3.) The World Heath Organization redefined "herd immunity" to ONLY include people who were vaccinated, not people who had prior infection and recovered. They then changed the definition back later on, when people caught on. The WHO released guidelines on how to operate the PCR tests that was far outside the guidelines, which would lead to false positives. Then immediately after the vaccine* rollout, they revised those numbers back to where they originally were. So the infection rates would appear lower. There's no scientific reason to demand that tests be operated in a manor that will result in false positives, then changed once you release a vaccine. That would muddy your own data.
4.) The dangerous mRNA vaccines* were the ONLY "acceptable" solution to treat COVID. Vaccines in general are usually years down the road, before release. Why would you push the vaccine route first, and not pursue the therapeutic rout first, or at least at the same time? Similarly, COVID was shown [CDC data] to be on par with the Flu for survivability. Why would they mandate vaccinations for something that's no more dangerous than the Flu, by their own estimation?
5.) When the mRNA vaccines* were showing bad outcomes, whether it be terrible side effects, general efficacy, or failure to stop the spread, they were sill pushed -- even harder. Meaning that mass vaccination* was the true goal, NOT stopping some illness that was ravaging the planet. They wanted to get as many people as possible to take the mRNA vaccines* regardless of possible injury, ineffectiveness, or inability to stop the spread.
6.) There was a massive government directed plan to suppress/censor any information related to the vaccines*. Information that has been proven factual -- because it came from Pfizer's own trial data was considered "disinformation?" Information was blocked on multiple video streaming services, and multiple social media services. Why block the manufacturers trial data? Informed consent...
7.) The G20 countries agreed to a "health/vaccine passport system" to limit the movement of people world-wide. Why would they do that when it's become clear that the vaccines* didn't achieve their goals? Now that they are considering COVID as a seasonal illness, there's no need for a passport system. Passports make no sense for a seasonal illness -- unless it was part of a plan all along.
If one were to run a PSYOP to try and trick the world to go along with losing their freedoms, how much different would it be?
Iβve lost all faith in all institutions at this point. For example, I completely tuned out the Ukraine thing. Have no idea what itβs about because I donβt trust anything anyone says.
The Chinese listed zero COVID deaths for more than a year. Which is probably true. It's most likely that China is looking at COVID deaths like an insurance company. If you die "with" COVID you didn't die "from" COVID. Say someone died with COVID but dies because of pneumonia, then they didn't die of COVID they died of pneumonia.
Here, in the US, the CDC lists fatalities for the Flu, as "Flu related illnesses." But that's inaccurate as well, because other colds could cause pneumonia (which is usually how Flu deaths occur).
But we do KNOW with 100% certainty that the CDC numbers are total BS, because they literally listed anyone who died with COVID as a "COVID death." Anyone trying to accurately gauge the situation wouldn't do that. The data would be useless.
I'm open to the idea that COVID was faked as a whole. I say that for a few reasons.
1.) The entire therapeutic route was abandoned before there was time to determine if any treatments were working or not. DARPA had data on Ivermectin's effectiveness against multiple types of viral infections, but that was ignored. The data was there the whole time, but you had to know exactly where to look for it. It's on the NIH website.
2.) From my own and other people's anecdotal evidence, the symptoms for COVID didn't make sense. Nearly everyone who tested positive for COVID complained of widely different different symptoms. While different symptoms are possible, they are not probable. Take the Flu for instance. The common symptoms of the Flu are the only reason anyone knows to get tested -- for the Flu. Same with most illnesses. Only COVID had such a wide array of symptoms, often times completely different for people within a household.
3.) The World Heath Organization redefined "herd immunity" to ONLY include people who were vaccinated, not people who had prior infection and recovered. They then changed the definition back later on, when people caught on. The WHO released guidelines on how to operate the PCR tests that was far outside the guidelines, which would lead to false positives. Then immediately after the vaccine* rollout, they revised those numbers back to where they originally were. So the infection rates would appear lower. There's no scientific reason to demand that tests be operated in a manor that will result in false positives, then changed once you release a vaccine. That would muddy your own data.
4.) The dangerous mRNA vaccines* were the ONLY "acceptable" solution to treat COVID. Vaccines in general are usually years down the road, before release. Why would you push the vaccine route first, and not pursue the therapeutic rout first, or at least at the same time? Similarly, COVID was shown [CDC data] to be on par with the Flu for survivability. Why would they mandate vaccinations for something that's no more dangerous than the Flu, by their own estimation?
5.) When the mRNA vaccines* were showing bad outcomes, whether it be terrible side effects, general efficacy, or failure to stop the spread, they were sill pushed -- even harder. Meaning that mass vaccination* was the true goal, NOT stopping some illness that was ravaging the planet. They wanted to get as many people as possible to take the mRNA vaccines* regardless of possible injury, ineffectiveness, or inability to stop the spread.
6.) There was a massive government directed plan to suppress/censor any information related to the vaccines*. Information that has been proven factual -- because it came from Pfizer's own trial data was considered "disinformation?" Information was blocked on multiple video streaming services, and multiple social media services. Why block the manufacturers trial data? Informed consent...
7.) The G20 countries agreed to a "health/vaccine passport system" to limit the movement of people world-wide. Why would they do that when it's become clear that the vaccines* didn't achieve their goals? Now that they are considering COVID as a seasonal illness, there's no need for a passport system. Passports make no sense for a seasonal illness -- unless it was part of a plan all along.
If one were to run a PSYOP to try and trick the world to go along with losing their freedoms, how much different would it be?