Is the Coronavirus Pandemic a Great Swindle?

blank

The following is an extract from Stephen Wells latest book The Great Coronavirus Swindle.

Pandemics are nothing new. The Plague or Black Death appears in history books as far back as the Roman Empire. Smallpox, Polio, Flu, the list is endless. Throughout history right up to the present day, humanity has had to deal with illness spreading and occasionally killing large numbers of people.

Up until this year, when no cure for a disease was known, the policy has been to isolate the sick. From Leper colonies to modern-day isolation wards, there was never any doubt about what should be done. Get sick people away from healthy people and let healthy people carry on living their lives.

Why the change? More importantly, why did nearly every government in the world decide to change at the same time? Almost the entire planet has suddenly decided that the best way for society to respond to an infectious disease was not just to isolate sick people but to lock down everyone.

For those of you living in (former) Democracies, do you remember any discussions occurring in Parliament about the pros and cons of such a radical change of plan? Do you remember any consultation or debate?
I didn’t think so.

Yet here we are. One day you were free to open your shop or restaurant, go to work, visit your family and friends, go for a walk in the hills, relax on a beach.  The next day if you did any of these things you were a criminal and a horrible human being. Selfishly risking lives and likely to be dobbed in by your neighbour to the police.

Such international coordination of totalitarianism doesn’t occur by chance. It was planned. Nearly 10 years in the making. Though the goals of those who funded the planning have been around for centuries and though many other schemes have been previously tried to attain these goals, this time the schemers finally hit the jackpot. Before we get to who they are and what their plans are, let’s get something more important out of the way first.

The worst thing about the police state that has been imposed was how many ordinary people cheered it in. In fact, it has been much more likely to hear people complaining that measures haven’t gone far enough than to hear someone complaining of losing their job or business or freedoms in general.

This is because people generally put life before liberty in the short term. They are happy to sacrifice their income or freedom for a period of time if it will keep them and their loved ones safe. They will sacrifice further if other’s lives are protected as well. But here is where the first lie comes in.

None of the sacrifices you have made were ever designed to stop anyone from catching the virus.Let me repeat that. NONE of the sacrifices you have made were EVER designed to stop ANYONE from catching the virus.

All those businesses closed. All those jobs lost. All the family and friends you have been prevented from seeing. Never were these policies ever meant to keep you or your loved ones safe.

The stated objective of the lockdown models was only to delay WHEN you and your loved ones became infected. The Government always expected you to get sick. The Government always expected your Grandma to die. It just wasn’t convenient for them for that to happen right now. So everyone had to be held in a holding pen until they were ready to admit you to hospital or put you in the morgue.

The exception to this is if a vaccine can be developed. In which case you will be allowed to live and allowed to participate in society once more. Assuming you agree to take it. More about that later.

On 16th March 2020 The Imperial College of London released a paper which attempted to model the future outcome of the CoVid19 pandemic under various totalitarian scenarios and provided advice to Governments around the world about how they should respond. It was titled: “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID- 19 mortality and healthcare demand” with Neil M Ferguson as lead author.

Should my link have been taken down in between me writing this and you reading this, a search of the title and the author, should still find you a way to access the paper.

The paper was a collaboration by the W.H.O. Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling, the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics and the Imperial College of London itself.

In terms of expert clout and influence any politician that rejected this advice was putting their career on the line, especially as after every new death, the press could demand to know why the leader was ignoring the “experts”.

Boris Johnson, Britain’s Prime Minister, tried for a while, but only lasted a few days before he backflipped and implemented total lockdown. 
But what does the paper actually say? Let me give you a few quotes:

“Mitigation will never be able to completely protect those at risk from severe disease or death and the resulting mortality may therefore still be high. Instead, we focus on feasibility, with a specific focus on what the likely healthcare system impact of the two approaches would be. We present results for Great Britain (GB) and the United States (US), but they are equally applicable to most high-income countries.”

“The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed.”

“To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population”

“We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound.”

In short the paper gave no hope of stopping the virus completely other than a vaccine, that does not yet exist, one day coming into existence and being effective enough and safe enough to be mass produced for the whole world.

Until then all Governments are suggested to do is manage when people become infected so that the healthcare system can cope. 
Importantly the paper does “not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made”.

Get that? The paper lays out what it believes will happen with the spread of the virus and the healthcare system (if your Government implements total totalitarian control for the next two years or more), but it doesn’t bother to consider how that might impact society more broadly. The politicians will have to argue that themselves if they wish to defy the advice. How brave do you believe your local politician to be?

It’s not as if there has been any research to look at how a complete and utter shut down of society might affect everyone’s well being either. No cost-benefit analysis. No looking at the cons to compare against the pros. Your Government has simply been given one report and God help any that choose to criticise it.

So you are expected to get sick. Some people are expected to die. If everyone gets sick all at once, the paper claims the healthcare system couldn’t cope, so the strategy is simply to delay. To let a few people get sick and die at a time. When cases go up, lock people down, when cases go down, allow people a short reprieve until cases go up again. Then bring in the lockdowns once more. Wash, rinse and repeat until either everyone who was likely to get sick has become sick or until a vaccine arrives to save you.

http://payhip.com/b/3J18

Stephen’s previous book Confessions of Climate Denier was self-published using Amazon’s print-on-demand services. However, Amazon in unison with other big tech companies during the coronavirus pandemic has stepped up its deplatforming efforts in the name of public health and safety. Hence they declined to allow Stephen to use their publishing service for his Coronavirus expose book. It is only available for sale online in ebook version through Payhip for $8AUD.

Stephen was a guest on last Thursday’s edition of The Uncuckables to discuss Amazon deeming his book too hot for its presses.

UPDATE: Since the airing of last week’s Uncuckables Stephen has been able to publish his Coronavirus expose on Amazon. All he had to do was change title and exchange every single mention of the word “Coronavirus” or “CoVid 19” in the book for the word “censored”! Amazon’s algorithms missed it so those living in the US, UK and Canada can now purchase a censored physical copy.

Author Details
×
Latest Posts
  • blank

Site Managed by ManageWP® Australia