At least 8 of the 9 authors of that BMJ paper are WEF members, affiliates or partners, and at least 1 of them is directly engaged in vaccine manufacturing, lol.
They are also all BIT-type folks. The one who came up with the BMJ paper idea, Ruggeri, also authored the nudge unit textbook, ‘Behavioral Insights for Public Policy,’ and is a collaborator with the UK BIT.
Ruggeri was a big supporter of the use of the US military in covid clotshotting the entire US population multiple times over (for something that has 99.6% zero or only mild or symptoms.). He absolutely loves a solider with a needle: “Every service member can become a public health professionalif the situation demands it [wink, wink]” “… every soldier, Guardswoman, Guardsman, sailor, marine, airman and airwoman has the potential to become a public health professional.”
And what “vaccine-hesitant” can resist a fully-trained weapon-laden professional killer armed with Pfizer-sludge?
In 2022, he practically jizzed himself back over the idea that the US military should be turned upon its own citizens, whenever needed, to profit big pharma, so it’s no surprise that he’s also involved in pushing nudge unit programmes on their behalf.
If washing brains don’t work, call in the soldiers!
LOL. There’s a “fact check” of that proclaiming it to be false, which then goes on to describe that it is in fact true … except that it was in the 1989 edition, not 1981. It’s a classic of the genre.
Anyway, I’m not sure what the point is here. Koontz is somehow involved in COVID? Or, he predicted COVID as an inevitability? He called Wuhan correctly, for sure, after having a stab at some place in Russia.
Koontz is a modern day Nostradamus?
1984 was more a reflection on the state of the planet in 1948, IMO. It was also a warning about how things could get worse. It was prescient in many ways, for sure.
I’m not sure if there’s a “point” as such, other than that Dean Koontz’s novel was bizarrely close to what went down - so close that the fact-checkers had to come out and say “Dean Koontz had no intention of predicting the future, therefore he didn’t actually write that, even though he did” (I’m not even kidding, go and read the fact check if you haven’t already). It’s amusing, that’s all.
I mean, I’m quite prepared to accept that it’s a complete coincidence. I really doubt he was in on some magnificent, multi-generational grift. But I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle - he’d overheard something from someone, about somewhere, and thought it might be fun to put it in the updated edition of his novel.
Is this the kind of “research” and critical thinking skills you end up getting when you give our participation medals in schools?
We rate the claim that Dean Koontz predicted the coronavirus in his “Eyes of Darkness” novel as FALSE because it is not supported by our research. While the book describes a fictional virus, Koontz has not said that the events in his novel were a prediction of what would later become a reality and has not spoken publicly about the book since recent events. The original version of the book had no mention of Wuhan and was changed later in 1989 for unconfirmed reasons. Furthermore, the virus described in the book is not similar to current symptoms and effects of the coronavirus.
.
