This morning, the Daily Sceptic republished Eugyppius’s reply to Michael Senger’s claim that the Covid response was “effectively a coup by the Western intelligence community”. It’s well worth reading both articles as they each draw on a considerable amount of research into the origin of the lockdown idea and how it came in 2020 to be accepted as the standard global response to a ‘pandemic’, despite its extraordinary and plainly unjustified economic and human cost.
Michael Senger, noting the close defence and intelligence links of many of the early proponents of lockdown measures, argues that these are indicative of what amounts to a coup or power grab by the people behind the measures, who are some combination of Western security-linked figures and people associated, possibly covertly, with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Eugyppius on the other hand sees no evidence that what was novel about the Covid response – the lockdowns and contact tracing characteristic of a mass containment or suppression strategy, as opposed to the milder ‘social distancing’ of a Sweden-style mitigation strategy – was being pushed by any of the biodefence-linked actors identified by Senger before the moment the WHO endorsed the Wuhan lockdown in its February 24th report. He thus argues that the early Covid alarmists “acquired their Covid hysteria along with everybody else” and only began pushing extreme Wuhan-style containment and suppression when it was greenlighted by the WHO.
Eugyppius explains that he isn’t really disputing Senger’s claims about the role of intelligence and defence agencies (“I don’t disagree with any of Senger’s specific observations, and I don’t think they’re necessarily in conflict with my own theses of What Happened in 2020”) so much as questioning the idea that the lockdowns and the rest of the unprecedented mass containment measures were specifically the fulfilment of a longstanding plot by intelligence and biodefence figures.
This is an argument between friends and there is little between the two positions. However, Eugyppius clearly sees it as important to stress that what happened in 2020 was not strictly in line with what those in the pandemic preparedness movement had been pushing for in the preceding years.
My feeling is that the distinction that Eugyppius draws between mitigation and containment strategies is being pushed too far. He regards the difference as one of kind, a fundamental split in approach, whereas it seems to me that it is really one of degree. Both are aiming to reduce the spread of the virus in the general population via reducing social contacts (i.e., they are not ‘focused protection’ or ‘let it rip’ strategies). Both aim to reduce the reproduction (R) number to lower the incidence of disease at any given moment. This is clear in Prof. Neil Ferguson’s infamous Report 9 of March 16th 2020, quoted by Eugyppius, where he defines a mitigation strategy as focusing on “slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread” (italics mine). Thus stopping spread is seen as a possible outcome of mitigation, just not a necessary one. Ferguson goes on to define a suppression strategy as aiming to indefinitely reduce case numbers “to low levels”. Notoriously, Ferguson and team concluded that even a “mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over”. Thus: “For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.”
However, the difference between these two strategies is really only a matter of degree – how much you distance people and for how long. Actually, there isn’t really a difference in how long either, as pandemic preparedness protocols had always, since they were first developed in the 2000s, envisaged that social distancing mitigations (including bans on large gatherings, closure of schools and ‘non-essential’ businesses, recommendation to work-from-home and quarantine of exposed (not just sick) individuals) would have to remain for the months or years that it would take to develop, test and rollout a vaccine. Thus from a U.S. 2007 plan:
During a pandemic, the goal will be to slow the virus’ transmission; delaying the spread of the virus will provide more time for vaccine development while reducing the stress on an already burdened healthcare system.
Report 9 shows that Ferguson et al. were very ready to recommend suppression “for countries able to achieve it”. This is in line with Ferguson’s later comments that before Italy locked down he and his colleagues thought “we couldn’t get away with it in Europe”. Referring to China’s Wuhan lockdown, he told UnHerd that: “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
The implication here, of course, is that the earlier reluctance of pandemicists like Ferguson to push for more extreme spread-reducing measures was due to what it was believed Western governments would accept rather than any strong distinction between the approaches. As a rule, they pushed for the strongest measures they thought they could “get away with”.
It’s worth noting, as Eugyppius has previously, that at Event 201 – the timely pandemic exercise of October 2019 – that lockdowns and travel restrictions were put on the table by the pandemicists running the simulation but rejected (at that time) by the Government representatives participating.
In this way the sharp distinction between mitigation and suppression strategies collapses, and both are seen as just different intensities of the one basic pandemic preparedness strategy of reducing spread by reducing contacts. As soon as biodefence fanatics thought they could “get away with it” and ramp up the social distancing into full-on lockdowns, they did.
Furthermore, what led them to see they could get away with it was, as Ferguson says, Italy doing it, and Italy did it first on February 21st, before the WHO Wuhan report. This was, as Michael Senger points out, due in large part to the work and influence of Stefano Merler, a kind of Italian Neil Ferguson. Thus they made their own possibilities.
I don’t always agree with Michael Senger on the role of the CCP. Senger sees the CCP to have been promoting a false narrative from the start and to have been secretly promoting alarm in the early days while only pretending to play it down, which doesn’t ring true for me. Likewise, he sees the story of ‘whistleblower’ doctor Li Wenliang, punished by the CCP for warning colleagues about the new SARS-like virus, to be a later CCP fabrication rather than something real – even though it embarrasses the Party by making it look incompetent and fickle. Even if the CCP was capable of that level of media manipulation – which I doubt – I don’t think it would want to when it makes it look stupid.
But I do think Eugyppius may be leaning too much on the mitigation-suppression distinction, which on closer inspection collapses into differing degrees of biodefence extremism separated only by what Ferguson and Co. think they can “get away with”.
I don’t know if I’d call it a coup exactly, as the instigators of a successful coup end up in charge of the Government, which hasn’t happened. But certainly 2020 was the fulfilment of the draconian plans of the biodefence and pandemic preparedness industry, decades in the making. And it’s going to be a long, hard road to undo the terrible precedents of COVID-19 and return to pre-2020 normality.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I am sorry for his loss and everybody else that have suffered harms taking these so called vaccines. Big Pharma need to be sued out of existence, there should be no tax payer liability for these companies to hide behind.
There will be no standing ovations at Wimbledon I suspect this year.
I agree but the problem being that now we are well and truly existing in Clown World, the very criminal organizations responsible for manufacturing these death shots are making yet more ( many more! ) mRNA death shots as we speak. Welcome to Clown World, where the murderers get to keep on producing their bioweapons of mass destruction, just for way more diseases this time! Justice? I wish. A very sick and twisted position to be in, that’s for sure.
The fact that Moderna are setting up labs in the UK, Canada and Australia is not a comforting prospect.
All part of the corruption and bribery. Will be joyful to watch them close and lose hundreds of millions in tax money….blamed on ‘hesitancy’ or ‘climate’ thingy.
Exactly. The proven “highly effective” ( at killing/disabling/illness-inducing ) mRNA bioweapon is not going anywhere, on the contrary. Which rather begs the question; how can we expect the Pharma companies to ever face justice and be found guilty of crimes against humanity whilst they’re simulateously cranking out more gene therapies like there’s no tomorrow? It’s not possible is it? It’s why I’m saying don’t hold your breath if you’re out for justice from that quarter.
Below, Dr Malone lists the 13 mRNA trials now completed and which diseases they’re for, but there are even more still ongoing or recruiting:
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/rna-vaccine-clinical-trials
Companies are protected against paying – the tax payer will get the bill.
Unless perhaps the government reveal that the companies lied.
If this gains traction I think that’s the route the government will go.
They could reasonably claim they indemnified them on the basis of the data they provided.
Now said data has been shown to be wrong/completely falsified I think they’d have a strong case to remove that protection
Yes, but it was the Government/health agencies that rolled out the vax program knowing full well this was an experimental vax that had not undergone normal safety trials.
Tying in to the many ways the gene therapies negatively impact health, if not outright kill you, I thought this ‘stack by Sasha Latypova very interesting. It’s her latest hypothesis based off of the evidence of plasmid contamination by Kevin McKernon plus research done by Dr Hazan on the microbiome, a 7min video featuring the latter is well worth a watch as she explains her research findings.
”So, here we have it all: the mechanism of weaponization of the mRNA/DNA “injections” is the same or largely similar to what is described in books on weaponizable biotechnologies: transfection of cells by delivery of RNA + “DNA contaminants” into the cells and induction of dysbiosis, which will in turn cause cascades of many chronic illnesses. This mechanism is now confirmed to be included in Pfizer and Moderna vials by direct testing with sequencing techniques by a highly experienced genomics scientist.
If we look at the seasonal respiratory illnesses as being initiated by imbalances of microbiome, and their symptoms (fever, cough, congestion, etc) as “healing crises” – body’s way of trying to re-establish the balance, then a bioweapon would need to be able to trigger the microbiome imbalance in large numbers of people. I am getting more convinced that this is what happened with “covid”. It was a way to trigger microbiome imbalances (with some unusual symptoms) by deploying large quantities of cloned purified RNA materials in the environment which would be picked up by inhalation/ingestion or perhaps transdermally. They would only last for a short period of time before degrading as RNA clones do not replicate and do not have cellular machinery to maintain themselves. These are not living organisms, they are simply genetic “spam mail” messages that all living things combat and try to get rid of. Since this material was cloned (purified), it would produce just enough consistent signature on (highly upcycled and manipulated) PCR and thus appear as a “new virus” for purposes of lying to the public about the existence of a viral pandemic.”
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/design-of-a-weapon-modifying-the
It’s sad that so many people have believed in the blatant lies promoting the use of this product, and that of the other pharmaceutical companies, and their agents. The other difficulty into the future is the question of confidence in other novel methods of treatment for whatever.
It’s the case that the mRNA treatments were carefully named as “vaccines” in order to avoid the much more stringent requirements for gene therapy treatments.
The pharmaceutical companies may well carry this forward especially with the US military pushing for such methods.
Paula Jones’s article at The Conservative Woman site shows that the pressure for these treatments came from within the military and has been in train for 20 years
Agreed. They have tweaked the definition of “vaccine”, and also took advantage of Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) to circumvent the methods required for any new drug assessment. What they have also done is to exploit the common understanding of what a vaccine should do, and avoided clearly explaining the reality of it. Things like the posters advertising it to the general public were blatant lies, worse than typical election posters.
Especially when you think of the survivability of the individual who catches covid. It seems you have more chance of vaccine injury than any long term effects of the virus.
This is a very thorough review of the ‘vaccines’ safety by a new author with an interesting bio.
He also has a similar piece on effectiveness there, whose conclusions I partially disagree with, but which is still worth reading. https://www.unz.com/article/how-safe-are-the-covid-vaccines/#4-heart-studies
Some (clickbait) highlights and his main conclusions:
“The bottom line is that the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials made it clear from the beginning that both vaccines cause much more harm than good. Everyone in authority knew this in November 2020, but they all said the opposite….
In fact, I have a lot more sympathy for the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna than I do for the average doctor who recommended the vaccine to his patients…
…I believe there are two kinds of people in this world – those who would lie for $100M and admit it, and those who would lie for $100M but will not admit it which is another lie. So, I forgive Albert Bourla and Stephane Bancel for their lies.
I don’t forgive the average MD. They had very little to lose by telling the truth to the patients who trusted them. Maybe they would have gotten in some trouble, perhaps even losing their privileges at their hospital, if word got out that they recommended their young and healthy patients not take the vaccine. So, maybe the financial cost to them would have amounted to thousands of dollars. But it’s pathetic to sell your soul for thousands of dollars. That’s like trading your birthright for a mess of pottage. Those doctors are despicable. Selling your soul for millions or billions of dollars, like Albert Bourla and Stephane Bancel did, is just human nature. You can’t really blame them for doing that…
In hindsight, anyone concerned about their heart probably should have avoided the Covid vaccine at all costs, including dropping out of college or quitting their job if necessary…
My conclusions from the research above are:
1. The vaccines are harmful. Obviously, the FDA should remove them from the market as they would normally do with any product that was even a fraction as dangerous. People in government and pharma need to go to jail for the deaths they caused.
2. However, this doesn’t mean that every vaccinated individual was severely harmed, or even harmed at all. For young people, Covid itself causes almost no injuries or deaths, and the vaccines probably cause few. For the elderly, Covid sometimes leads to pneumonia and death, but in most cases it is just a very bad cold. The vaccines are probably worse than that – in some cases deadly, but in most cases not. The vaccines are bad, but not apocalyptic.
3. Of course, you can’t directly compare getting Covid with getting vaccinated because you can’t choose between them. If the vaccines worked perfectly, and vaccinated people never caught Covid, then you could choose one and not the other, although even then being unvaccinated and catching Covid is probably safer than getting vaccinated and preventing Covid. But that’s not how the vaccines work in real life. The vaccines make you more likely to catch Covid, not less likely (the subject of my other paper). So, the choice people actually face is a) remain unvaccinated and suffer a chance of catching Covid, or b) get vaccinated, possibly be harmed by the vaccine, and then suffer a greater chance of catching Covid, which can also hurt you. The risks are not separable, they are additive. This is not a hard choice.”
And the matter explained in 3 is not well advertised, of course. Most of us should know that a branch of “common colds” are Covid, although the term was not normal in the past – about a quarter of cases, roughly, although many are not recorded at all. What is not clear is whether the Covid-19 jab increases the risk of being infected by either other coronaviruses, or any other type of infection. Not only that, there seem to be quite a few occurrences of neurological injury as well.
For the elderly, Covid sometimes leads to pneumonia and death, but in most cases it is just a very bad cold.
Or a not so bad cold. Or nothing at all. Pneumonia is a perfectly normal and usually harmless (the NHS recommend rest and drinking lots of fluids for the ordinary case) complication of respiratory infections. In 2021, an acquaintance of my mother in her late seventies was hospitalized twice because pneumonia, once because of COVID and a second time because of something else. She survived without intensive care both times and got married in between so that her partner of some years wouldn’t again be told that he must not visit her in hospital because he’s not related to her.
One big problem with this – we have a long wait before we are in possession of long-term safety data.
True, but he addresses that too in the full article.
Just like organ donation, there should be a grass roots campaign for NHS users to carry a card stating they will not subject themselves to any treatments / drugs / jabs involving mRNA manufacturing processes.
Just say no. En masse.
DT also carried this story, permitting comments until late last night. These were striking in 3 ways – the degree to which people had woken up (a short 1000 comments), the categoric views, and the personal experience of jab harms.
Comments wiped this morning, but one glimpsed a tsunami.
Wiped? Bastards.
At a guess, behind their paywall so no chance of the Wayback machine having a record.
That’s a regular occurrence at the Telegraph, some time back I emailed their ‘investigation desk’ asking if they could investigate where my comments had gone, sadly I received no response!
They need their donations from the Gates foundation
I wish him and doubtless many others to come every success.
It will be interesting to see how the (at the moment ) nobbled Judiciary get AZ/HMG off the hook on this one.
“It was a new and novel pathogen which would kill millions of people eg 50,000 plus in the UK alone .No one had any pre existing immunity. It was imperative a vaccine had to be developed as quickly as possible.” That may be a defence to a negligence claim, but this sort of claim is a new one on me.
Either way it will take decades to sort. Think Bigtobacco…
That said, I wonder where the likes of Tim Davie stand. He’s responsible for the BBC disinformation unit and has said/admitted on many occasions that his job is to prevent the spread of disinformation. But, he also owes a duty of care to his employees….
Maybe this poor lady and many others would still be alive today had the BBC done its job properly ie allowed proper debate between relevant experts as to the benefits/harms of vaccines as weighed against the danger ofcovid.
In my world, the heads of the likes of AZ, Pfizer,etc. and Davie, Blair etc. would be indicted for manslaughter, never mind being defendants in a Civil action.
By the way, if you thought AZ, more of a “traditional”, vaccine was safer than the mRNA ones, I urge you to digest and spread the word re this :-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
And this :-
https://www.rintrah.nl/the-trainwreck-of-all-trainwrecks-billions-of-people-stuck-with-a-broken-immune-response/
Your last paragraph touchs on something I’m a bit fearful of – this lawsuit appears to be solely in relation to AZ. I think it quite likely that the UK and other countries will end up admitting to AZ being a flawed vaxx and hope that will shut people up, trying to pin all AEs on the viral vactor vaxxes – the J&J will be sacrificed along with AZ.
They obviously have big plans for their mrna poison so will do whatever it takes to protect it.
Indeed, that should be the big worry.
But it’s not likely to be whilst ever the MSM obeys its masters.
Bigpharma have been at it for years, as most on here know full well.
For any newcomers, please consider the Book – “Turtles All The Way Down”.
Should be compulsory reading for everyone.
Good, it’s about time some legal action was taken and reported on, I wish Mr Eve and those litigating with him good luck – and above all, that justice finally prevails.
However, it is also time to stop starting any argument with “I’m not a crackpot / conspiracy theorist / anti-vaxxer, but…” – you have no need to apologise for a just claim. It does not matter if you howl at the moon every month, if you think vaccines come straight from the devil, if you believe in every conspiracy theory on earth, no matter how dubious or meritorious the theory and facts presented. None of that detracts from the fact that these vaxxes are garbage and should never have been pushed on people on the scale and with the propaganda and coercion we experienced.
We were lied to and lied to on a monumental, shameful scale when it came to these so-called vaccines. They are not and never were vaccines as any normal person understands them, they fiddled the trials, they never, ever had any data to back up the continuing claims of “safe and effective”, they continued lying even as people dropped dead in front of the vaxx location and A&Es filled with people in the first vaxx round. They continued lying when “breakthrough infections” occurred within months of the first jabbathon, in spring 2021. They continued lying when they said a 3rd shot would do the trick, when they had done zero trials for a 3rd poke and thus could not possibly know or believe that to be true – the opposite, in fact. Indeed, when the 3rd shot was being administered in Europe and the US in autumn 2021, Israel was already seeing infections and hospitalisations in those they had stabbed for the third time in August 2021. They denied the now well-established fact of myocarditis, particularly in the young, for a disgracefully long time, even though it was first flagged in the spring of 2021.
The only conspiracy theory in relation to this poison was that on the part of the politicians, the health authorities, the medical community and the media, repeating outright lies even as true data clearly showed otherwise. Conspiracy is a known and accepted concept in criminal law, the only issue would be whether it is theory or not – there is no theory here, the facts of the conspiracy and the harm it caused are now well established. The shoe needs to be on the other foot and the conspirators must start apologising to us, those they knowingly lied to and harmed.
Everything as usual at the Daily Müll:
Seventy-five Brits have been killed by Covid vaccines, official statistics published in February show.
It equates to roughly one death for every 2million jabs dished out in the UK.
Leading experts the claim the low death toll is proof the life-saving vaccines are incredibly safe.
Müll, German for rubbish. The National Lottery markets its scam with It could be you,
despite the chance of winning the lottery are much less than 1:2,000,000. Leading experts should really have marketed the covaxxes in the same way, eg
Get vaccinated now! It’s the right and socially responsible thing to do! The vaccines are incredibly safe, they’re only killing 1 in 2 million on the spot! It could be you!
How were Covid-19 vaccine trials approved in healthy people who weren’t at risk of the virus? How did they get ethics approval? This is what must be tracked back now… See my email to Andrew Pollard, Chief Investigator on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials…and also Chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), a huge conflict of interest: Who initiated the plan to vaccinate the entire global population against SARS- CoV-2? 40 June 2021.
The monkey trial demonstrated the vaccine did not prevent infection nor spread. Should the vaccine have proceeded to human trials? See my email: Were ‘leaky vaccines’ deliberately spread round the world? Sent to Graham Brady, Chairman of the 1922 Committee, UK Conservative Party, 10 January 2022
“it’s certainly good to see some more pieces on vaccine harms getting into the mainstream press”. It’s sad to see the MSM are still so far behind the curve, and that they even allowed themselves to get to that point. They have been a large part of the problem, so excuse me if I don’t join in with their self-congratulations should they finally achieve fundamental recognition of harms (injuries & deaths) caused by the vaccines by those in authority.