Coronavirus Chaos Theory

Coronavirus Chaos Theory

It has been roughly three months since the initial stages of the coronavirus outbreak. A great deal has happened over this time, and with the George Floyd/Black Lives Matter protests now blanketing the news, it can be easy to forget how we got to where we are today. While it is abundantly clear to me at this stage that Covid-19 is a cover for a larger agenda, I understand that many will consider this to be a conspiracy theory. The suspicions I expressed in March, however, have since transformed into full-blown incredulity and my rejection of the official narrative has further crystallized. We all have our blind spots, but I do not believe my stance is informed by selfish goals or misunderstanding the “science.” Rather, having a spent a great deal of time looking at the forces at play from as many angles as possible, I genuinely don’t believe the official story holds any water.

Before our collective memory of the “old normal” is replaced by the “new normal”, I’d like to review some of these inconsistencies. My aim is to show that fear of the unknown has yet again been leveraged to confuse, subdue and distract the public while a select few have profited from the chaos while also seizing the opportunity to push through other social initiatives. This larger agenda — the details of which I will explore later — is aimed at radically and swiftly altering just about every aspect of society as we know it. This story may have begun with a supposed viral outbreak, but it will continue under any guise necessary until we, the people, realize what is happening and push back in whatever ways we can.

Before diving into the details, I’d like to recap a few developments since my initial blog post from early April. At that time I suspected Covid-19 was a 9/11 type event. I speculated it was likely planned in advance, but even if it weren’t, it would be used to justify a series of widespread social and economic changes, not only in the United States, but across much of the world. At that time, this was mostly an informed hunch, but since publishing that post, and with a wealth of new information to consider, my view on the situation hasn’t changed all that much.

Today I still contend that this is an orchestrated event of some kind. I hesitate to use the word “hoax” as I don’t think it has the right connotation and dismisses many legitimate aspects of the recent events. A more apt description might be that of a “manufactured crisis”. Even though I was initially concerned over the release of some kind of engineered pathogen — either deliberate or accidental — my concern over “the virus” has waned considerably. This is because what I see transpiring is primarily a psychological operation, and less of an act of bio-terrorism.

This is despite the fact that I have since learned that viral “gain-of-function” research is very real — even if not for bio-weaponry purposes — and that pathogens escaping from research facilities is actually somewhat common. Though the majority of these cases are quickly contained, somewhere in the world, some kind of toxic agent is accidentally released every few days. So whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated from a lab in Wuhan or not, this theory isn’t as farfetched as it may have sounded a couple of months ago. With initial infection dates being bumped back in many countries and reports of variant strains that predate the Chinese outbreak — as a study from France indicates — it is very likely there are multiple strains with various origins all contributing to the Covid-19 crisis. Who’s to know? We may never know.

What has been most interesting over the past two months is how these theories have migrated from discussion amongst alternative media circles to the centre stage of American politics. Earlier in May, we saw a number of key players in the White House flip-flop over their views on the origin of the virus. Forbes has been maintaining a timeline of events related to the US position on the matter, and viewed collectively, Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump, and Anthony Fauci seem to acting out a bad Marx Brothers sketch.

On April 30th, Trump claimed there was “evidence” that the coronavirus originated from a lab in Wuhan. A few days later, Pompeo confirmed what Trump said, but stated it was unlikely the virus had been genetically modified. Fauci then denied it could have originated in a laboratory, maintaining it had jumped from animal to human, either from a bat or another animal at a Chinese wet market. Pompeo later said (again) that there is “enormous evidence” the virus originated from a lab in Wuhan, but backtracked his comments immediately after. Finally — and tying in nicely with my previous allusions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 — Trump had the following to say on May 6th:

This is worse than Pearl Harbor. This is worse than the World Trade Center. There’s never been an attack like this. And it should have never happened. It could have been stopped at the source. It could have been stopped in China. It should have been stopped right at the source, and it wasn’t.

So is Covid-19, in fact, the new “New Pearl Harbor”? I’m actually surprised it has taken this long for the US to point the finger at China. It’s been hinted at for a while, but is now official. I hear echos of George W. Bush announcing to the world that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. We now know that was a complete fabrication used to justify the Iraq war, so similarly today, we cannot conclusively take anything Trump or Pompeo says at face value. There may very well be a covert war brewing between the two nations, but ultimately, I believe this episode of political theatre is one big distraction. I think the Chinese connection is important, but not in the scapegoating way it has been presented. I’ll circle back to this point later when we look at the goals of the pandemic agenda, but in the mean time, let’s return to the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak.

Looking Back

It takes a great deal of mental effort to remember exactly how I felt during those first couple weeks in March. Back then, as the crisis spread around the world, the cause for concern was seemingly justified. I felt something was off, but statistical tickers showed plague-like infection numbers and scary death rates. With so many unknowns, the need to do something was apparent. I was then (and remain today) unconvinced that social distancing and wearing a face mask was scientifically sound, but at the very least, I understood the logic behind why borders were closed and stay-at-home orders were rolled out.

We can now see that one of the driving forces behind the lockdown measures in at least the UK, US and Canada was the work of Neil Ferguson of Imperial College — aka “Professor Lockdown.” His computer model predicted millions would die around the world and was cited as the justification for the extreme measures. Not only were Ferguson’s predictions proved wildly wrong, he was later caught breaking his own lockdown recommendations to visit a romantic partner. This was particularly problematic because he also diagnosed himself as having Covid-19 symptoms in March.

In early May, he stepped down from his role advising the UK government at the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), but the lockdown continued on anyway. Did he know his model was bogus or was he unable to admit his mistakes? Why weren’t the lockdown policies revisited after this scandal? Amidst all the chaos, answers to these questions still haven’t been provided. In fact, while this was going on, the official UK government website quietly announced that it no longer considered Covid-19 a “high consequence infectious disease (HCID)” and that statement that hasn’t changed since March 19th.

Though Ferguson’s model was wrong, even I will admit there was some logic to the mandates surrounding the stay-at-home orders as to how they related to hospital capacities. We were told these measures were necessary to “flatten the curve” and prevent hospitals from overflowing, even if this would have no effect on the number of infections overall. This made sense at the time, but by roughly mid-April, rumours that hospitals were at half capacity and furloughing their staff became a reality in many cities. On a personal level, my mother’s hours at a hospital in Southern California were reduced to 3 days per week and even then, she was barely filling the time. There were a handful of hotspots, of course — e.g. New York City — but in general, the warning that the medical system would be completely flooded didn’t even come close to fruition. What can explain this? Were we that good at washing our hands and social distancing?

The mandate to wear face masks is another area that has created mass confusion. Even the WHO — apparently one of the few organizations we’re “allowed” to trust — did not recommend wearing a mask in March and still doesn’t recommend wearing one today unless you are sick or caring for someone sick. If you are to wear one, it is only considered effective if it firmly covers your nose and mouth and when used in combination with frequent sanitizing. The CDC, on the other hand, tells us cloth coverings are useful to prevent the spread of “respiratory droplets” that can supposedly travel around 6 feet. The WHO has a similar distance recommendation (though they don’t suggest face coverings) but theirs is only 3 feet. So which is it?

These two organizations can’t seem to agree on anything. On May 20th, the CDC released a report that included a revised best estimate of the Covid-19 fatality rate amongst those with symptoms of 0.4% and an overall rate of 0.26%, roughly that of a strong flu. This is a far cry from the scary 3.4% death rate the WHO was reporting in March, yet very few media outlets have picked up this story. Even today the WHO’s dashboard (and similarly the Johns Hopkins dashboard) simply show case numbers and death numbers on a world map. Finding reliable case-fatality estimates from these sources is virtually impossible. What are people supposed to make of these figures? I understand the difficulty with modelling these things, but something is very wrong when one organization estimates flu-like numbers while another estimates plague-like numbers.

More recently, there appeared to be some good news from the WHO when on June 8th, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, technical lead of the Covid-19 response team, publicly announced that the likelihood of transmission of the virus by anyone without symptoms was “very rare”. A day later, however, this statement was backtracked and called a “misunderstanding.” Unless someone from the WHO publicly announces they have no idea what they’re doing, it’s going to take a great deal of work for them to regain my trust.

Testing is another area that has been problematic, especially because there isn’t just one type of test being administered. I’ve already mentioned how the primary method — the PCR test — can identify patterns in a piece of genetic material, but does not, by itself, indicate whether a significant amount is found. It is essentially an amplification tool for DNA and RNA samples that can easily generate false positives when testing for the presence of a virus. It’s a fascinating technology, but it is important to recognize it is not perfect when it comes to Covid-19 (or any coronavirus). Alternatively, antibody tests have also been used, but are considered less reliable than PCR as they only indicate whether you may have previously been exposed to a virus, not whether you currently have one in your system. Finally, antigen tests are even less reliable but can provide quick results (minutes, not days) though they require further testing to be considered more conclusive. Despite the widespread call to increase testing from many governments — with some regions even suggesting testing quotas as prerequisites for fully reopening business and other services — it seems little attention is being paid to how effective these tests actually are.

An interesting story that has been mostly dismissed, or in some cases slandered, by media in the West is that of Tanzanian President, John Magufuli. In early May, he publicly announced that his country had imported testing kits from abroad and decided to “test the testers” by supplying deliberately fraudulent samples to the national lab. Their creative collection included things like motor oil and a variety of animals and local fruit. To their surprise, positive results for Covid-19 were found in samples from a goat, pawpaw, jackfruit, and a local bird called a kware. Magafuli concluded that “there is a dirty game played in these tests” and who can blame him for saying so? This alone doesn’t necessarily prove anything, of course, but it certainly raises questions. Is there a dirty game being played here?

At this point, I am not only sceptical of the testing procedures, but also of the reported death numbers and fatality rates. Contributing to my distrust are the numerous reports that imply death totals have been padded in a number of locations. In a Project Veritas report from late April, several funeral directors in New York recalled people being reported as dying from Covid-19 that weren’t actually tested for the virus at all. In several American states, results from viral tests and antibodies tests have been accidentally conflated, bungling any sort of meaningful value they may have had. Consider these cases alongside the CDC’s generous death reporting guidelines that deem it acceptable to report Covid–19 on a death certificate for someone who has not been tested if it is “suspected or likely”.

There are so many inconsistencies to report and I’ve only touched on a few. For more examples, I recommend Swiss Propaganda Watch for their massive and regularly updated list of data point and other stories. Even if you don’t believe there is a “grand conspiracy” at work here, I hope, at the very least, you have expressed suspicion over the incredibly inconsistent levels of quality within the scientific and medical communities. In 2005, a professor at Stanford University named John Ioaniddis actually published a now widely cited paper on the subject titled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. From his statistical analyses, he produced a series of corollaries, three of which I think are particularly relevant today:

#4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

#5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

#6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.

In other words, research studies with moving goal posts tied to financial incentives involving a large number of scientific teams is less likely to be true than those produced under other circumstances. Covid-19 checks these boxes.

Alternative Perspectives

Given how much Covid-19 policymaking is supposedly “based on the science”, I find these shortcomings deeply concerning. Many people today hear the word “science” and equate it with some kind of absolute truth that cannot be questioned. Frequently ignored is that science, by its very nature, is constantly evolving and relies on theories, assumptions and frequent challenges. As I see it, much of what we call science today is merely scientism, a pseudo-religion rife with dogma, politics and a self-serving agenda; Covid-19 has exposed this illusion more than anything in recent history. What drives this point home, more than anything, has been the silencing and discrediting of those that dare challenge the gatekeepers and high priests of the “scientific” narrative.

This post would balloon to an unmanageable length if I tried to summarize all of the alternative perspectives on the pandemic, so instead I will provide a round up of a few voices that I have found valuable over the past few months. I encourage anyone curious to review these resources on their own time. These individuals may not all agree on the details of Covid-19, but just about every one of them, in their own way, believes there is something else at play.

In late March, Off-Guardian published 12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic. This list included some names like Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg that I referenced in my post from early April. Even Dr. Michael Osterholm — of whom I was initially critical for dismissing the bio-weapon possibility — is included in this list, stating that a lockdown was not a viable solution. Off-Guardian followed this list up with 10 more experts, then another 8 experts in April, all questioning the narrative. These earlier links may be “old” by news cycle standards but the individuals listed here haven’t changed their tune. Many have continued to voice their opinions and speak out against the status quo.

The independent studio Journeyman Pictures has been publishing an interesting interview series called Perspectives on the Pandemic. I have linked to their series on Bitchute because half of their videos were removed from YouTube for violating their new content guidelines that warrant removal of “anything that goes against World Health Organization recommendations”. Given my earlier comments about the WHO, you can probably surmise how I feel about this.

Included in the series is a follow up interview with the two Bakersfield doctors whose original Covid-19 briefing was also removed from YouTube for suggesting the pandemic wasn’t as deadly as had been portrayed. I shared their original video on social media before it was taken down because I felt their statistical approach to estimating the death rate was more accurate than the simple cases-divided-by-deaths formula frequently shown on various online dashboards. They were also one of the early voices to point out the negative effects of self-isolation and question whether the “cure” (lockdowns) was worse than the disease. Aside from socio-economic impacts, they also pointed out how decreased interactions with other people has a negative effect on a healthy immune system, thus explaining why it is standard practice to quarantine the sick or-at risk, and not the healthy.

Also in the series is a discussion with John Ioannidis from the metascience study mentioned above that I found particularly balanced and informative. Early on, he argued that there was not enough data to justify the lockdowns and he did not support the closing of schools either. He was later involved in an antibody study in Santa Clara county that indicated the virus was likely less deadly than originally believed. Though he and the other researchers acknowledged their process was not ideal, the findings are still useful and I believe closer to reality than other reports. His second interview from late April is viewable here.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman is another interesting voice who has not only been critical of the statistics and lockdown measures, but has even questioned the root of contagion theory itself. In addition to pointing out the flaws in the PCR tests, he has argued that there are scientific problems surrounding whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has actually been isolated as is claimed. Instead Kaufman believes that Covid-19 symptoms are not caused by a virus, but by spikes in exosomes, naturally occurring byproducts of our cells. I don’t have enough medical knowledge to fully grasp the implications of his ideas, but I’ve found his perspectives interesting at the very least. You can catch an interview with him on The Last American Vagabond or at London Real TV.

For a different take on the pandemic and with a particular focus on the role of vaccines, research patents, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the short documentary “Plandemic” is worth a watch. It is yet another video censored from YouTube and features the testimony of Dr. Judy Mikovits. She argues that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was genetically manipulated and therefore cannot be considered “naturally occurring”. Mikovits also believes seasonal flu vaccinations have increased the likelihood of contracting Covid-19. She cites a study from 2019 that found a possible link between the treatments and coronavirus related illness, a phenomenon called “virus interference”. In addition to highlighting the problems with various medical policies — many of which I’ve mentioned above — Mikovits also touches on the larger forces of corruption within the pharmaceutical industry and how deep state actors stand to gain from the crisis. After facing criticism for her comments in the Plandemic documentary, she responded with an interview on London Real that is rather enlightening.

Finally, while on the topic of corruption in Big Pharma, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his organization, Children’s Health Defense, have put together an incredibly detailed catalogue of major events since 1998, titled A Timeline—Pandemic and Erosion of Freedoms Have Been Decades in the Making . RFK Jr. is one of the major voices in the safe vaccine movement and the timeline he and his team have put together is almost a rabbit hole in itself. The events listed paint a complex and sinister picture involving key organizations (e.g. WHO, NIH, NIAID, Imperial College, Moderna, Microsoft, Wuhan Institute of Virology) and key people (e.g. Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Neil Ferguson, Shi Zheng-Li, Deborah Birx) in the medical world. This stuff is incredibly hard to follow, but the timeline is one of the best resources I have found so far that attempts to assemble the pieces.

Whether you pursue these alternative thinkers or not, the message I hope to leave you with is that there is a growing community of medical professionals who disagree with the recommendations and policies set forth by governments and established health organizations like the WHO and the CDC.

Lock Step

The bigger question here is why does any of this even matter? Perhaps all the craziness we have experienced over the past three months has simply exposed the structural problems of a globalized world and the fragility of the scientific process. If this were true, however, I’d argue the solutions implemented to fight this supposedly killer virus would look very different. Instead, the vast majority of “new normal” policies seem to have benefited large corporations and data hungry government agencies while the lower and middle classes have been sucker punched by the suspension of the economy. If this pandemic is truly as naturally occurring as we are told, then we as a people have our work cut out for us to quell the outrageous level of income disparity in our society. If Covid-19 is what I have called a “manufactured crisis”, however, then what we are grappling with is a crime against humanity.

While the news today might show you scenes of individuals looting Nikes and other wares, a much more heinous looting of the American financial system has quietly occurred since the signing of the CARES Act in late March. This economic relief fund distributed trillions of dollars to large corporations in various industries, primarily those considered “too big to fail”. Chris Hedges, in his recent article,“The Treason of the Ruling Class”, describes the outcomes as follows:

The act allowed the largest corporations to gobble up money that was supposed to go to keep small businesses solvent to pay workers. It gave 80 percent of tax breaks under the stimulus package to millionaires and allowed the wealthiest to get stimulus checks that average $1.7 million. The CARES Act also authorized $454 billion for the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, a massive slush fund doled out by Trump cronies to corporations that, when leveraged 10 to 1, can be used to create a staggering $4.5 trillion in assets. The act authorized the Fed to give $1.5 trillion in loans to Wall Street, which no one expects will ever be paid back. American billionaires have gotten $434 billion richer since the pandemic. Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, whose corporation Amazon paid no federal taxes last year, alone added $34.6 billion to his personal wealth since the pandemic started.

Even those involved in the race for a “cure” are raising some flags. Last month, Moderna, one of the biotechnology companies tapped to produce a Covid-19 vaccine made an announcement about positive results from their early trials, generating a 30% spike in their stock price that resulted in a market value of $29 billion. Not bad for a 10 year old company that has yet to actually sell anything. This story raised eyebrows, however, because the day after the announcement, the company’s Chief Financial Officer and Chief Medical Officer dumped their stocks — profiting $19.8M and $8.2M respectively — before the stock then dropped back down by 15% over the following two days. Does this instil anyone with confidence about the life saving work they’re supposedly doing over there?

Disaster capitalism is far from new, but Covid-19 may end up being the most egregious in history. Time will tell. Even so, profiteering is not my primary concern over recent events. I am much more troubled by how the pandemic has been used to change the way society functions at its most basic level. It seems as though practically everything — medicine, finance, education, hospitality, travel, communication — is now on the table for reform or “reimagining”.

For a glimpse at where I think things are headed, I recommend Naomi’s Klein’s article Screen New Deal: Under Cover of Mass Death, Andrew Cuomo Calls in The Billionaires to Build a High-Tech Dystopia. The article describes how New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, has tapped Bill Gates and former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt to “reimagine” the state’s “post-Covid reality.” Klein paints a terrifying vision of a siloed, digital-everything, Matrix-type future for New York state which I see as a blueprint for every other major metropolitan area. Here’s Klein:

This is a future in which, for the privileged, almost everything is home delivered, either virtually via streaming and cloud technology, or physically via driverless vehicle or drone, then screen “shared” on a mediated platform… It’s a future in which our every move, our every word, our every relationship is trackable, traceable, and data-mineable by unprecedented collaborations between government and tech giants.

The article also includes this particularly chilling quote from Anuja Sonalker, CEO of a self-parking company:

There has been a distinct warming up to human-less, contactless technology… Humans are biohazards, machines are not.

Ever since March, it seems we have been catapulted towards a technologically driven world that doesn’t seem to consider the impact on the human beings that are supposed to live in such a place. Even though I work in the software industry and have long advocated for flexible remote-friendly work schedules, this proposed future sounds utterly dystopian. I won’t want to live in a world entirely mediated by machines. As I see it, technology is only useful if it solves real problems for real people. Much of what’s being described in Klein’s article is a high-tech future that benefits a very specific kind of person, and I guarantee you and I are not part of that special group.

If some of the proposals for New York sound futuristic, I’d remind you of William Gibson’s oft-quoted truism, “The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.” For a taste of the future, we can look at China today, where the “new normal” is already a reality. If you aren’t already familiar with China’s Social Credit System, now would be a good time to learn about it as I believe rest of the world is heading in the same direction.

Whitney Webb’s article Tech Tyranny: How the US National Security State Is Using Coronavirus to Fulfill an Orwellian Vision does a deep dive into how the United States is in the midst of an “arms race” with China over 5G, AI, surveillance, and other Big Brother type technology. Webb examines a presentation received via FOIA request from the Nation Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) whose chairman is Eric Schmidt. Politicians like Donald Trump may claim China is the “enemy”, but in reality, it appears that many factions of the military-industrial-intelligence complex see the country as more of trial run for the West.

It may seem like these initiatives have sprung up over night, but this is far from the truth. Journalist Harry Vox was discussing this exact future as early as 2014. In a rather prophetic and entertaining interview from that year, he summaries a 2010 document from the Rockefeller Foundation entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. This “Lock Step” scenario describes a hypothetical pandemic stemming from a novel influenza strain originating from “wild geese”. The outcomes include a number of now prescient trends including internet censorship, fMRI health scanning tools in buildings, “biometric IDs” and “tele-presence technologies”. In particular, China’s authoritarian response to the outbreak is praised:

The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

Sound familiar? The rest of the document describes a variety of forces — from technology to philanthropy — and how they would lead us to a “world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership”. Was this a prediction or a game plan?

It’s hard to know what to make of the months ahead, especially as the ominous warning of a “second wave” has been planted in our minds. Will this come in the form of a spike in infections (either real or manufactured), or will it be something else entirely? In mid-May, Rick Bright, the alleged whistleblower whose warnings of PPE shortages were apparently ignored, warned the world at a government hearing that “2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history”. Dark winter? Was he referencing the Dark Winter pandemic war game exercise from 2001 by any chance? The one that ended with “sporadic rioting” and the deployment of the National Guard?

Just like Operation Northern Vigilance, a hijacking simulation underway on Sept. 11, 2001, or Event 201, the coronavirus pandemic simulation in late 2019, the growing links between simulations and real events is becoming a concerning trend. You would think that with all these training exercises and strategic think tank documents, we would be better prepared for all these earth-shattering crises. That would only be true, of course, if we assume these exercises are designed to prevent such things.

Three months ago, I urged citizens to “remain vigilant and watchful of opportunism and the abuse of power if we have any hope of returning to our normal way of life.” Today, the writing is on the wall. We are being led into a dystopian future that will only benefit the 1% and the matrix control grid it wields to keep us off track. Any sort of halt to our freedoms — be it for health reasons or civil unrest — will consolidate government power and benefit the unelected technocracy that wish to exert even more control over our lives. My only hope at this stage is that more people will open their eyes to see the war that is going on and not pour too much of their energy into individual battles. We have a long road ahead of us.