COVID Humbug! (2023 edition)

This time it will work!

1 Like

Watched this all the way through to remind myself of the lies, gophers reading their scripts, and total bullshit:

1 Like

It’s the same as the one I posted above, but without that guy’s intro :slight_smile:

Did you post that it was “Interesting”?

Nope. But I guess I could have. It’s definitely one of those succinct historical snapshots of how much bizarre bullshit was heaped upon the populace during the past three years.




For me the major turning point towards insanity was right at the start when people started pushing the point that focussing on protecting the vulnerable was first unfeasible, and then unethical. Which resulted in people in care homes getting decimated - although how much of that was down to Covid or the response is up for debate. Anyway, that allowed the agenda to move into vaccinated herd immunity nonsense.


In retrospect, all of that crap was scripted. All of the components were already in place - the simulations, the Trusted News Initiative and their ilk - and all they had to do was switch it on and crank out the desired message. The Fauci emails suggest that he’d already got a team in place to take people down via social media attacks on their credibility. There’s no possible way that a propaganda campaign on that scale could have arisen spontaneously and organically.


Another determined data analyst who crunched the numbers and exposed the government’s claims of vaccine efficacy as shifty as all furk. She wanted to know why, after mandating vaccinations, hospitalisations went up…

Xin Yin Ooi: “In 2021, our government told us that Covid-19 is an unprecedented pandemic that requires an unprecedented solution, which is to vaccinate the entire population with few exceptions — the old, young, middle age, everyone, with Covid-19 vaccines that have just gained provisional approval from the TGA,” she wrote.

“They told us that this is our way out of the pandemic. That the vaccines will ‘stop the spread’. Later, our government said even if vaccination doesn’t stop the spread, it will make us less likely to be hospitalised, end up in the ICU, or die. Logically, NSW Health having led our Covid response, should be very keen (and obligated) to check that the vaccination program works, that it achieves the intended objectives.”

“We had three years of this pandemic and they are saying they never leave behind a record of the data they used to do their report, which they continued to produce every week,” she said.

“There’s no checking, we can’t verify it is right because they erased everything.”

She said in her line of work she would always retain that data in order to be able to go back and “verify that it’s accurate” if something goes wrong.

“Ask any data analyst, is this something you would do?” she said.

“Create a complicated analysis that takes hours to create the output, and never save your analysis, never save any intermediary work, just publish the final thing? You can’t trace it back, there’s no audit trail. It’s just poor practice, especially during a pandemic and a vaccination program, that makes it more serious — you’re erasing the data that you are basing the policy on.”

A spokeswoman for NSW Health declined to comment :laughing:


"Like many Australians cooped up during Covid lockdowns, Xin Yin Ooi found herself “obsessed” with weekly updates from health authorities, poring over case numbers, vaccinations, hospitalisations and deaths.

As a data analyst, the Sydney woman was naturally interested in the detailed statistical breakdowns provided in NSW Health’s weekly surveillance report — so when she noticed a strange figure in one table, she decided to request the underlying numbers to check the work for herself.

The only problem? The data had been “erased”.

“It was a big shock,” Ms Ooi said.

“In the early days of Omicron, our Premier, Health Minister, chief health officer, every day at the press briefing I remember vividly they were saying, ‘The data shows two doses are not enough, you need three to deal with Omicron.’ They kept repeating, ‘the data, the data’ — it’s just unbelievable they would erase the data.”

Earlier this month, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) ruled in favour of NSW Health in a freedom-of-information battle with Ms Ooi, who first lodged a Government Information Public Access (GIPA) request with the agency more than a year ago.

Ms Ooi had asked NSW Health to provide “patient level de-identified data” which underpinned two tables in the surveillance report published in the first week of February 2022.

Table five of that report was a breakdown of hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths between November 26, 2021 and February 5, 2022, sorted by vaccination status — one, two, or three or more “effective doses”, no “effective dose” or unknown.

Table six was the “proportion of cases with a severe outcome” of either ICU or death, broken down by age and vaccination status — but only showing “three or more effective doses”, “two effective doses” or “less than two effective doses”.

Ms Ooi also requested any “other relevant info that can help me understand this data”, saying in her March 2022 application that “my first analysis objective is to ungroup the last two columns on table six into [a] more refined vaccination category”.

“This is actually a very important table — it traces the cases since Omicron arrived in NSW, it was a new virus at the time, everyone wanted to know what it does,” she said.

What is interesting is you actually see, moving from no dose to one dose, there is actually an increase [in hospitalisation] from 1 per cent to 2.7 per cent if you look at that column. I’m a data analyst by profession, I wanted to know why, so I did a GIPA. That started my long journey pursuing this.”

Full story: NSW Health ‘erased’ data used in weekly Covid surveillance reports.


Will they pull this same shit again?

ATTENTION: The World Health Organization, John Hopkins University and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation completed a new pandemic simulation back in October of 2022 in Belgium, Germany. These are the same exact people who ran event 201, which was a pandemic simulation they ran for Covid six months before the real Covid Pandemic hit. According to the simulation this new pandemic will originate in Brazil in 2025 and the virus is called #SEERS (Severe, Epidemic, Enterovirus, Respiratory, Syndrome). Reports in the simulation stated there’d be a billion cases worldwide with 20 million deaths, including 15 million children, with countless millions left with paralysis. SEERS is an enterovirus, like Polio, that can not only effect the nerves in the spinal cord, and cause paralysis, but it can also effect the brain stem, and make people brain dead. According to the simulation we have approx a year and half to get as ready as possible. Plan accordingly.

Video here:

but how would we be able to tell?

They do as the government tells them.

A billion cases of that sounds about right, then.

If by that you mean they wanted to kill as many people as possible, it doesn’t make sense. I don’t care if this kills you as long as I get paid is not the same as this had better kill you or else I won’t get paid. If the purpose really had been to kill people, why would they start with their own countries, unless they were in a UFO cult or something? That they included the military blows that particular conspiracy bubble. If you destroy your own military, you’re just inviting a foreign military to come and take you over.

What, destroying themselves deliberately as opposed to through mere idiocy? Which civilizations were those?

The front end of this vid sums it up. Far from perfection, but it takes time to get the blade razor sharp.

1 Like

I remember watching this video for the first time was when I found out I speak the aboriginal language. Don’t know where I picked it up

For my aboriginal friends:

I remember watching this video one.
I found out I speak your language one.
Don’t know where I picked it up one.


No, by “this” I meant all of it - clownworld as we know it.

The purpose was not to kill people. People simply didn’t matter. A certain number of deaths were required to give the appearance of a pandemic; some could be fabricated out of thin air (by reclassifying heart attacks as “COVID”) but at some point they had to demonstrate an increase in all-cause mortality, and they achieved that by subtly fiddling with the treatment protocols to ensure that people who came in with a bit of breathing difficulty were pushed over the brink. It was done with a combination of withholding standard treatments and enforcing dangerous ones. Mass murder was not the aim, merely the fabrication of some plausible statistics.

How does it blow that bubble? Surely it demonstrates what was obvious years ago: it is an actual cult. People who do things that are detrimental to themselves, to others, and to their country, and enforce those things with fanatical zeal, and not in their right minds. If they are in their right minds, then they’re monsters who should be shuffled off quickly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $16 trillion.

They don’t believe that they are destroying themselves deliberately, nor are they idiots. They think they’re saving the world, and they think they’re clever because they are. Remember the old saw: there are no guilty men in prison. The people in charge, in their own addled heads, were saving us all from ourselves. They believed with complete confidence in their own infallibility. Fauci was the science. Ardern was the truth. This is something like messianic delusion. They certainly didn’t sit in their offices cackling maniacally and wondering how many people they could kill today.

A more readily-comprehensible example would be the obsession with climate change. The clowns-in-charge sincerely believe that banning air travel, making stupid plans about electric cars, and shutting down farms, is going to usher in a bright new future for us all. I’m sure Mao genuinely thought killing all the sparrows would have a similarly wonderful result. Of course ignorance is part of it: these people know precisely nothing about electric cars, or where their food comes from, or what ‘nitrogen’ is. At the end of the day, though, they’re just lunatics; they don’t care how much they know about these things because they’re indisputably right regardless. They belong in a padded cell. Unfortunately, there are a sufficient number of people who think they can profit from the mayhem before their lives run out to go along with it all.

As the old punchline goes: “exactly!”

1 Like

Woah! Your thoughts are all jumbled. Let’s try to put some order into this…

Not sure who’s misunderstanding who here. “Clownworld” has as many interpretations as there are clowns in the world.

Does “all of it” include destroying civilization on purpose? If not, it can still include making zillions through covidism, but you keep seeming to say the side effects of covidism (besides more money for the few, e.g. the economic devastation for ordinary people, the increase in mental illness, the extra deaths post-covid, etc.) are the whole point, without showing us the evidence for it. Not the evidence that the side effects exist – that is abundantly clear – but the evidence that the side effects were really the intentional effects all along.

Okay, so they weren’t trying to kill people.

Okay, so they were trying to kill people, but only as many as were necessary to satisfy the statisticians, even though the statisticians would see through the whole operation anyway, and the masses wouldn’t understand the statistics no matter what they were (because the masses never understand statistics) but would still be terrified as long as there were a few vividly terrifying statistical soundbites to put out there, so actually no (extra) deaths were necessary.

Your logic and my logic don’t always get along. :idunno:

Here you’re definitely missing my point. Actual cults are a thing, yes, but it’s not clear how vast and coordinated you think covidism was. If you have a cabal sitting around the table saying okay, we need to destroy civilization, and the covid plan will work nicely, first of all the question is why they want to destroy civilization.

If it’s so they can be the new overlords in a Mad Max style world because while everything else falls apart they’ll have a big stash of not-falling-apart resources whereas most people won’t, okay, that has logic to it. But. Then they need to ensure that their big stash of resources is truly the most useful stash and also the best protected, so no-one else will take it from them and either kill them or push them aside. Long story short, they need to be more powerful than the most powerful military on the planet, which they aren’t unless they’re the US military. And yet the US military was also subjected to covidism. (Keep in mind neither Russia nor China used mRNA jabs.) Now do you understand what I was getting at?

For the cabal to say we don’t care if the power vacuum is bigger on one side than another because the planet’s going to be nuked back to the jurassic age anyway, they need to have something else in mind besides (conventional) world domination. Hence the UFO cult example.

Can you find some people who are rich and powerful and have UFO cult tendencies? Sure. Are enough of the richest and most powerful people on the exact same UFO cult wavelength to put an actual, full-on world destruction plan into motion? Extremely doubtful. Where’s the evidence?

That was in response to your comment about previous civilizations. But since you went back to the current one…

If they don’t believe they’re doing it deliberately, then they’re not doing it deliberately (unless subconsciously). Just sayin’.

Ah, this again. They’re not laughing all the way to the bank – they’re just naive idealists. :rainbow:

Now you’re taking politicians and politician-like celebrities at face value: if they say they believe X, they believe it. What makes you so confident? We all saw the pictures of politicians who made a fuss about masking not following their own advice when they thought people wouldn’t notice. Same thing over and over.

I don’t think they sit in their offices cackling maniacally and wondering how many people they could kill today either. But people who make lots of money do tend to cackle maniacally (inwardly if not out loud) and wonder how much more money they could make.

Anyway, getting back to the historical question:

The punchline takes on a different meaning if the thing referred to never existed. Just sayin’.

Crikey, yyy, I think we’re going down a ginormous rabbithole here. All I was suggesting earlier is that there was a large component of intent and planning in the situation we now find ourselves in, and that it absolutely did not happen because our dear leaders were just bumbling along making silly decisions. They were making the right decisions for an unspecified outcome; genuine bumbling usually has no result at all, and is quickly overtaken by people who know what they’re doing - and in fact that’s what I think has happened here. There are some bumblers. They’re being played by people who are smarter, more driven, and more focused - people like Fauci and Whitty spring to mind.

Well, yes - which is why I just waved my hands and said “all this stuff”. There are a whole bunch of clowns, each with their own interests, running their own special clownshow, and playing to a definite audience. However they do tend to overlap into a coherent whole, and you’ll only see it from 20,000 feet. If you start looking at blades of grass you’ll lose sight of it.

It wasn’t the whole point. It was merely necessary. At the risk of Godwinning myself, consider that the Nazi death camps were not “the point”. The underlying goal was to create a shining new city on the hill, populated by chunky blonde people, unsullied by retards and poofs and Jews. Mass executions were just an inevitable, perhaps “regrettable”, incidental occurrence. A bit of a tiresome chore, really.

Regarding vaccine side effects specifically, I don’t think anybody cared, for much the same reason they didn’t care if the vaccines ‘worked’ or not. The point was to get people to accept a bodily assault “for their own good”, in combination with an enforcement regime. The nature of the assault was entirely irrelevant; in fact the less sense it made, the better. They were confident that unforeseen side effects could be managed away or dismissed; and so it transpired.

Ok, so it seems like you’re getting legal on me. So we agree that there was an actus reus, and now the debate is merely over mens rea? We’ve presented quite a lot of evidence in this thread. The most damning one for the UK, IMO, was the Mindspace document. This was actual documentation of government reasoning underlying the “pandemic” response. In the US, you had the Twitter files, the Fauci emails, and a whole bunch of other revelations indicating an intent to subvert honest conversations and fill people’s heads with lies - thereby creating the hysteria that made everything else possible. We also had the Pfizer document dump, showing that Pfizer knew that their products were both unsafe and ineffective.

I think at this point the defence needs to show that these documents do not demonstrate intent to harm, but mere incompetence. That strikes me as difficult. Every health authority on the planet was incompetent? Really? I don’t think so. A lot of the people who have been pushing lockdowns, fake vaccines, and all the rest of it are highly qualified. There is no possible way they misunderstand the biology. Claiming that (for example) humans don’t have a functioning immune system and that they can only acquire one via magic injections is not just mindlessly stupid, it’s logically impossible given the way vaccines function.

I don’t think you’re going to get very far trying to find a thread of logic in something that was inherently illogical. People who are mentally disturbed - and I have no doubt whatsoever that a lot of people, including people at the top, lost their minds - do not think logically. At least not in the usual sense of the word. They will behave consistently with their delusions, but the delusions themselves are unlikely to make sense to a normal person. For whatever it’s worth, my working theory at the moment is that a few powerful medical wonks really, really wanted a pandemic. They thought it would be super exciting, and they could solve it with magic vaccines. Once they got the ball rolling, a whole bunch of other people said “omg, that looks like fun, I want to play too!”.

I’m not claiming with absolute certainty that this is The Truth. It’s merely one hypothesis that fits the facts.

The statisticians did see through it, but TPTB mounted a concerted campaign to deplatform them. Anyone with a bit of basic number-crunching skill could see through it. The thing is, though, if you want to discredit someone, you need at least a figleaf over your own credibility. If you have nothing at all, the unwashed masses will smell a rat. The ‘statistical soundbites’ had to have enough plausibility to appeal to people who just barely struggled through GCSE math.

Have you noticed the people who latched onto this nonsense, and clung onto for the longest, were people who were very smart but had no qualifications outside of some narrow subject area? They probably had enough math skill to understand things like “excess deaths”, but their conception of these things lacked nuance. They understood them in the way a bright 12-year-old would understand them; here’s a time series, here’s another time series, you subtract one from the other and - ta-da! - that’s how many people died of COVID. It’s completely stupid, but the point is you couldn’t do that unless there was some way of ending up with a positive “excess death” curve at the end of it. The mathematical imperative is that there had to be some dead people.

I thought I covered this. They don’t exactly want to ‘destroy civilisation’. They want to destroy whatever is in the way of their ideological goals, so that they can replace those things with the new and shiny version of civilisation, which will be better for all concerned (especially them). This is not a theory. It’s been explicitly discussed by any number of world leaders (and of course our beloved Herr Schwab). There’s even a term for it: “creative destruction”. It’s just that in this case it’s taken on a pathological slant.

Yes. And I think they’re making very good progress in this regard. What isn’t entirely clear is how many factions there are. Are Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia truly at war, or are they only pretending to be?

Not really. Look how COVID panned out. Everyone just rolled over with barely a word of protest. About 50-60% of the population absolutely loved it. The magic ingredient in all dictatorships has been the acquiescence (or participation) of the plebs.

Well, the simple fact that they all co-operated under the WHO umbrella. They all did the same stuff. And they’re still doing the same stuff - CBDCs, “net zero”, etc. If you want to say “oh, that’s not evidence they’re all in lockstep”, well, what’s the alternative explanation?

It applies to humans past and future. As you’ve frequently observed, there’s nothing new under the sun.

Ah, legalities again. My point here is that they are doing something deliberately. If someone robs a bank and shoots all the bank tellers, he didn’t actually go to the bank with the intention of killing some bank tellers. He just wanted the money. His intent was to steal, not to kill. The bank tellers just happened to be in the way.

As I said at the top, “they” are not a homogeneous group of clones stamped from the same mould. Some of them want this, some of them want that. Some believe this, some believe that. At some point in the Venn diagram of interests and beliefs, though, it all converges on a “you are here” hellscape.

Google “lost civilisations”. There are dozens of famous examples, and probably hundreds or thousands of which little or nothing remains, plus some fringe speculation (I’m sure you’ve heard of Erich von Däniken). Just a couple of random examples thrown up by google:

If you’ve never heard of any of them, it’s a rabbithole all by itself. Civilisations come and go. There’s no reason why “the West” would persist indefinitely.

And from 20,000 feet you’ll lose sight of the complexity of it all. :yin_yang:

That answer says no but yes: no it wasn’t a plan to destroy civilization, but yes it was a plan to create a new civilization. But that means it was a plan to destroy civilization for the purpose of creating a new civilization, so it really boils down to yes. (The only way it doesn’t is if it’s a plan to create a new civilization in addition to the present civilization, not as a replacement for it. But that’s not what you’re saying, is it?)

You start out there with one thing and quickly move to another. Not caring about the safety or efficacy of a product as long as it makes money (or “creates wealth”) is a well known phenomenon, but the point of it being assault is separate from the point of it being money, and the point of it being maximum cognitive dissonance is still another thing. You can have people who are there for the second thing, and you can have people who are there for the third thing, but the presence of those people doesn’t prove their goal (they being the assaulters and dissonancers) was ever the goal of the people who were there for the first thing (the money people).

It’s a bit like a protest where people with different motivations and different ideologies show up, and someone says look at this document written by someone at the protest, it’s a clear statement of intent to overthrow the government, and gosh darn it actually is that, but that doesn’t mean the majority of people at the protest want to overthrow the government, nor does it mean the majority of the people who signed the damn thing without reading it want to overthrow the government either (most probably thought it was just a petition, and most who did read it probably didn’t understand it anyway). It also doesn’t mean the protest was caused for the purpose of overthrowing the government. When large protests happen, there tend to be multiple causes. There are also multiple causes of phenomena as big as covidism.

Not legal, just logical. There is usually overlap (one hopes), but I’m just trying to sort out questions of fact here, not questions of law. When I say prove I don’t necessarily mean prove legally.

The smokiest smoking gun? The document that basically says apply psychology for better results when trying to do stuff? You’re sounding like David Martin and whatshisname the German-Californian lawyer guy. I mean you’re showing people something, saying it must mean X, it’s completely obvious that it means X, there is no other possible explanation, without explaining how and why you must get to the X. It’s like a Rorschach that does resemble something but isn’t clearly and definitely that thing, and yet you swear it can’t not be that thing.

Again, you’re mixing things together. People lie and manipulate all the time, especially when they expect to get rich and/or powerful by doing so. Covidism is another chapter in the unending saga of lies and manipulation. If you call it next level, okay, I won’t argue that. But you’re going further.

Well no they don’t, but anyway…

Try a time trip to 2019 to explain to yourself how frighteningly competent they are. :cactus:

Still mixing things. As long as you have obedient, “politically neutral” public servants, all you really need to do to compromise a ministry is to compromise the minister (who appoints the deputy head or whatever it’s called locally). It certainly helps if people are too stupid to understand what’s going on, but they don’t need to be conventionally stupid. They can be conventionally smart and still fall for the marketing… But even if they’re smart overall, for them to make a difference they would need to organize mass, high level resignations or something. As long as most people fall for the marketing, even that won’t work.

Anyway, the question here is why the minister would allow oneself to be compromised. You say it must be because the minister believes in the Shining City on the Hill. I say bollocks. All the minister needs to believe in is the shining house on the hill, for the minister and the minister’s family. The minister may believe in this Shining City or that Shining City, but it’s not necessary.

You keep citing 100% or 99% buy-in from all countries on the planet as evidence (proof?) to support your position. I say that argument works against itself: that level of Shining City ideology coordination just doesn’t exist yet. You can take it as a compliment though: you’re ahead of your time.

Once again, ignoring the obvious (regulatory capture) in pursuit of your pet peeve (utopianism)…

Wow, that’s a relief! :rainbow:

Yes but no. As long as the marketing is clever enough, even the tiniest, fakest, most plasticky of fig leaves will do. And in a system that revolves around money, you should expect marketing to get cleverer and cleverer all the time.

I disagree. You don’t need excess deaths, just the perception of them. (Results will vary depending on factors like how much people trust the government…)

The basis for the organization in question (which doesn’t control the planet btw) is money. If arranging things in a certain way – lobbying politicians to arrange things, that is, because that’s what businesses do as long as they’re permitted to do it – is more profitable, why would you not arrange things in that way? Because it would turn the planet into a shithole? Bah, stop being sentimental, they would say.

It’s the same concept as any “good” or “smart” businessperson pushing a product: it doesn’t matter what else it does as long as it makes money. Businesspeople these days are doing an increasingly good job of dressing their businesses up with ideology to deflect criticism (next level marketing), but at the end of the day that’s just good business. :moneybag: :rainbow:

Still getting way ahead of yourself.


Oh come on! There were whole threads about the protests. And then there were the funny, totally coincidental policy reversals just the right amount of time after the protests for the politicians to save face. No idea what happened there… :whistle:

Still jumping around. The fact that the WHO has no teeth to speak of works against your argument. (That Aussie government guy claiming the IHR were binding rules was full of shit, sorry.) The fact that the recent attempt to give it something resembling teeth failed works even better against it. The fact that CBDC’s exist as a concept is neither here nor there. Once the concept exists, people who like the concept for whatever reason will naturally pursue it. You can’t stop that any more than you can stop people pursuing AI. (And how would you do that if not by being a nanny-stater and interfering in the free market? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:) You don’t need a cult to explain any of that, because it’s just how humans are.

So we agree they’re not a homogeneous group, but you still think they’re homogeneously controlling the world?

That’s 100% not the question. The question is, which civilizations deliberately destroyed themselves? Or to fit your recent arguments, which ones destroyed themselves through utopianism? Or were all past civilizations utopianist in some way? How far are you going to stretch the definition of utopianism to make it fit your ideological goal here?

Correct – most bank robbers would prefer not to kill people. A better analogy though would be hacking into a bank to steal without any physical intrusion and therefore no possibility of directly killing a teller, even though there’s a high possibility that bank employees will die of destitution or suicide in the fallout. It comes down to how badly people want the money and how little they care about other human beings.

But speaking of bank robbers and ideological obsession, you know what you’ve been reminding me of lately?

Is your past life as a utopian nanny state supporter still haunting you? Good news: you can apply psychology to get better results in overcoming that ghost. Not even kidding! :slight_smile: :rainbow: