I am still trying to get a handle on conspiracies. Forget that… I am still trying to get a handle on reality. In the end, theorizing about conspiracies is just that: an attempt to get a handle on reality.
We don’t like uncertainty. It makes us feel comfortable to know that things happen for a reason. Knowing the reason makes it easier to accept even things we do not particularly like.
Some theories are trying to foretell the future, some to explain the past. Sometimes, when the present makes no sense at all, we need to theorize about the intent that brought it to us. Religions are very elaborate conspiracy theories.
The key element of conspiracy theories is the distrust of existing answers.
We tend to distrust what does not make sense to us, what does not correspond to our existing knowledge or information. We distrust contradicting information and narratives. We distrust those who tell us not to trust our own observations and logic. We distrust those who previously misled us. The only way to reconcile the dissonance is by finding an explanation that does make sense and corresponds to known facts.
As Yogi Berra famously said:
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.”
In theory, a conspiracy theory is just that: a theory, a set of alternative explanations to challenge previously offered explanations that were judged unsatisfactory. In practice, it is often a collection of evidence contradicting the official narrative. The ‘conspiracy’ element is the projection of intent, the assumption that the challenged explanation isn’t simply wrong but it is a deliberate lie with nefarious, immoral or outright criminal intent. Some conspiracy theories have a strange tendency to become explanations of what actually happened.
The Covid ‘pandemic’ is a fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Why? Because the official narratives make no sense, because the statistics are so obviously distorted, because the policy responses were so outrageously stupid, because the lies were so transparent and because the blatantly obvious vested interests can so easily explain it all.
We don’t know what happened. I mean we don’t know if there was something behind the public performance that we all have seen and are still seeing today. A conspiracy if you will, but it could have easily been just colossal incompetence.
I don’t know, but I have a whole lot of unanswered questions.
Since the answers are not forthcoming, we are stuck with the theories. The first point of those theories is always the same: We are not hearing the truth, because somebody has a reason to hide it.
- Bat soups
I just realized, that the first I ever heard of bat soups was about month before I heard of the virus that have supposedly came from it. Not before, not since. Why is that? I later learned that the bats came from 2,000 kms from Wuhan. There are no bats around Wuhan except for the ‘imported’ ones used in the lab. The Wuhan vet market was not selling bats. Who came up with this idea and why? Where did the news come from? Why didn’t anybody question it? How is it possible that such obvious baloney made it into the most reputable news outlets of the world?
- The lab-leak
What is NOT a question is why the Chinese communists tried to cover it up and why were the American communists (a.k.a. the Democrats) so eager to help them. The answer is simple: because that’s what communists do. They try to sweep their dirt under the rug and weaponize the problems they created to clubber their enemies with it. There is no conspiracy there, just blatant lies. Why was there no investigation into the origins of the pandemic? Why isn’t there one now?
Why is Dr Fauci still not under investigation for his role in funding the research that caused the pandemic?
- Why to scare us?
The original message was very simple: “Be afraid, be very afraid! This is a seeeeerious, deadly virus coming from that scary looking vampire bat and it will suck your life away! This will be worse than the Spanish flu! The only way to avoid it is by hiding and obeying the benevolent authorities. Go home, stay home, do nothing and when you are ready to die, just go to the hospital where they will take care of you.” (And they did)
The obvious fear-mongering made me suspicious. How about you?
- Chicken soup
What was not part of the original message is what is still missing today, nearly two years into the pandemic: actual treatment and prevention.
When I get the flu, I stuff myself with Nyquil and vitamin C, then I try to sleep it out. I try to sweat it out in my sauna. I inhale mint to clear my airways. I eat my wife’s chicken soup with some Thai peppers.
These sort of common-sense home remedies were completely missing from the public messaging. Even without a cure, we could have helped to alleviate the symptoms. Why didn’t we? Why did I have the feeling that common sense messaging was not only missing, but actively suppressed? Who informed all family doctors that the new standard of care is DO NOTHING? How is it possible that so many doctors found that acceptable? How is it possible that so many doctors just threw up their hands saying “that’s not my business, let the hospitals deal with it?” How did they all come to the same conclusion at the same time? As a professional body, have they no shame? If they acted on orders, who gave those orders?
The role of vitamin D was clear from the very beginning. Zinc was not far behind, yet the only context that brought up vitamin D was racism. The problem was not vitamin D deficiency for whatever reason, but the disparate affect of the virus on different ethnic groups.
Zinc, a well-known immunity booster, was vilified by association as it was part of the hydroxychloroquine/Ivermectin – Azithromycin treatment regimens.
- Early treatment
After nearly two years and a tremendous amount of knowledge gained, we are still not talking about prophylactic and early treatment options. Why?
- Hospital treatment
In a year and a half, we learned a lot about the illness and the harm the virus causes. We know a lot about how it works and this knowledge can be applied. Hospitals do treat patients, don’t they? Why don’t we hear about what they do? Why did we not learn about them in those tedious daily briefings?
- The medical interventions
For the first few months, the only apparent medical intervention was the use of medical ventilators.
It did not take long for ICU whistleblowers to point out that the problem was not lower respiratory system failure but oxygen deprivation and that it was the intubation that killed half of the patients. Yet, the medical ventilators are still used widely and there is no public acknowledgment of the fact that their use may have been a mistake. WHY?
- The non-medical-interventions
Masks, social(ist) distancing and the disinfecting of everything sprung up quickly and became more absurd by the day. Some of it may make some sense to some, most of it is just ridiculously stupid. Putting a mask on while walking to your table in a restaurant – where you can take it off – was compared by someone to having a pissing section in a swimming pool.
The messaging about it was inconsistent and contradictory from day one, its application was arbitrary and hypocritical.
There is absolutely no evidence that masks and distancing work; on the other hand, there is mounting evidence showing that masks are actually harmful. Yet any such evidence, any such argument is censored. Why? Why can’t we even talk about it?
- The lockdowns
Just like the rest of the non-medical interventions, the lock-downs, the curfews, the travel restrictions made no difference in the spread of the virus, but managed to cause immeasurable harm. A scary level of growth in obesity, alcoholism, depression, domestic violence, suicide, etc.
It could be argued that the lockdowns killed more people than the virus. We’ll never know, because the question is outside of the realm of polite discussions. Why would that be?
Why can’t we talk about it? Why are the effects of policies not researched?
The average weight gain during lock-downs is two pounds per month. Obesity is a prominent risk factor for bad Covid outcomes. Why are we creating conditions that predisposes people for the very condition we are supposedly trying to save them from?
- Winners and losers
The economic devastation wasn’t exactly even handed. The richest benefited from it handsomely.
Only small businesses were destroyed. Chain stores and restaurants benefitted at the expense of small shops and family restaurants. In the name of protecting people, we locked them out of small businesses (where their distancing could have been easily controlled) so that they can all crowd into the big box stores and supermarket chains.
I understand that this was not a bug but a feature, but I still have to ask: did the people who came up with the idea really expect us not to notice?
- The statistics
Numbers don’t lie, right? In the first few months we were all glued to the news trying to follow the progress of cases, the death rates, the weekly averages and the doubling of the infections, the “outbreaks”, the movement of the pandemic around the world. A daily thrill and horror until you realized that it is just a meaningless circus. Nothing in the statistics was real, none of the numbers had any meaning, as hardly any of them had a proper frame of reference. “X number of new infections in Y”. But……. Compared to what? How many were tested? In what time-frame?
“Z number died”…… Yes, but what was their age? What was the number of “years of life lost”?
As long as the average life expectancy of the victims was lower than their age at the time of their death, that number could easily be negative.
How many co-morbidities did the victims have?
Did they die ’with’ or ‘of’ Covid? How many was assumed to have died of Covid alone? How many was tested BEFORE they died? Which test was used? How many cycles of amplification?
At some point, the statistics just turned into nothing more than annoying background noise. They were so stupid, so meaningless and so irrelevant that they did not deserve even rhetorical questions. They were just illustrations of the contempt toward their audience.
- For almost a full year, until the theory was already past tenable, The Economist, implicitly acknowledging the unreliability of statistics based on reporting, was pushing heavily the excess death rate idea. The notion that we will only understand the full impact of this pandemic from a historic perspective, when we see all the excess death. Now we do. Let me illustrate:
The numbers in this list are mismatched. Can you sort them out?
If you ask me in the comments, I will give you the actual numbers. Can you see the pandemic?
Neither can I. …..or The Economist. Only our policy makers and public officials pretend that they do. Shouldn’t we wonder why?
- The flu
As an interesting side effect of the ‘pandemic’, the flu disappeared from the statistics. What happened to it? Did Covid cure it?
- The messaging
The messaging was straightforward and confusing at the same time. The confusing part was the message that was changing and evolving constantly. First go to Chinatown then don’t go out at all. Masks are useless, then compulsory, then wear two, maybe three and don’t step out of the house without one. First it was to flatten the curve, then preparing for the second wave, then herd immunity all the way to a point where we need 100% vaccination and a ‘booster shot’ or two before we can return to ‘normal’. Except that normal does not look anything like normal.
The straightforward part of the messaging was, well, just that, straightforward: “Don’t ask questions, shut up and obey!”
- The SOLUTION
The solution, even before it existed, was the vaccine. Isn’t that strange in itself? Nobody ever succeeded to create a safe and effective vaccine for ANY of the coronaviruses, but at the outbreak of this one, the industry was so certain that they will succeed, that they were ready to dismiss any and all other possibilities.
The vaccine makers are so confident about the safety of their vaccines’ that they refused to release them until they received blanket immunity from ANY law-suite concerning said safety.
- The vaccines
The vaccines work so well, that we will have to get regular booster shots.
The vaccines work so well that its recipients need to be protected from the unvaccinated and each other, of course.
- Some vaccines work amazingly in some parts of the world, but are unacceptable in others and vice versa.
Mixing the accepted ones work sometimes, but it may turn out that it does not.
- The only thing that does not work is natural immunity.
Anybody who has it, MUST be vaccinated. Does that make sense to you? If it does, I have a bridge to sell.
- There is a cure
As I am writing this, I just learned that Merck is applying for the emergency authorization of an early treatment drug called Molnupiravir. It will cost about $700/treatment. Manufacturing cost is $17.-. The Indian Ivermectin kit cost less than $5. The latter is proven to be safe; the former has a checkered safety history, but it is far more profitable. I would not be surprised if it turned out to be Ivermectin with a newly patentable secret sauce addition. The US government already bought 1.7 million treatment doses of the drug which was developed on taxpayers’ money.
Can you come up with a few questions about that?
As you can see, questions are aplenty and so is nonsense. Nothing adds up in the ‘official’ narratives.
It’s only natural that inquisitive minds try to find answers.
It must be obvious to any thinking person that this is most likely a scam. If not, then it is at the least a shameless exploitation of a real crisis.
It must be obvious that it has nothing to do with public health;
It must be obvious, that the issue is not the issue, leading to the real questions:
What IS the issue? What is the goal? Who is doing it to us, and WHY?
I don’t know the answer, but I will lay some theories on you in my next post.