It is now nearly impossible to get through the day without encountering a message about the COVID-19 shot, be it directions to where to get it, enticements and incentives to override concern, or penalties or public shaming for choosing to abstain. It is difficult to recall in recent decades a more relentless and coordinated campaign to motivate private citizens to take a given personal action. What makes this different? Why do the powers-that-be so badly want those shots in our arms?
The immediate response of most people is a parroting back of what they have been told--because we want an end to masks, lockdowns, and people dying. We want the pandemic to end so we can rebuild the economy and go back to regular life in all its glory. To this, we all agree. But we must remember that it wasn't the pathogen that signed those lockdown orders and mask mandates. It was people making policy decisions, following the lead of a totalitarian regime on the other side of the world.
Perhaps we can give those policymakers the benefit of the doubt, recognizing they were working with bad data, faulty models, and public panic. But accepting that the shot is the sole ticket back to normalcy is putting them in charge of the solution to the problem that they, in some respects, created. It contradicts data suggesting this illness was not as devastating as it was portrayed and ignores known preventative measures and safe and effective medical treatments that are proven to save lives when administered early. It also pits those who got the shot against those who didn't, sowing bitter division and amplifying the pressure for all to comply with what is essentially mandatory vaccination by proxy.
The degree of coercion to get the shot begs the questions:
- What aren't they telling us about the shot?
- Why are they targeting our children who have virtually zero risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from COVID-19?
- Why have they suppressed vaccine alternatives and censored dissenting views?
- What is the larger agenda at play?
To answer these questions, we need to connect the dots and seek out alternative explanations based on the actions and decisions taken thus far and the longer view of what could be a carefully constructed master plan.
The End Game
Whether the pandemic was a naturally-occurring event or orchestrated as part of a larger plan, it appears institutions are using it to further their aims. What might those aims be? When we collect the clues and start piecing them together, we arrive at the familiar doorsteps of wealth, power, and control. The desired end game of the pandemic and the mass injection campaign that followed could be global control and the extinction of human freedom and autonomy. It sounds far-fetched--outrageous even--until you realize there is no benign or benevolent explanation that justifies the different and drastic way this illness has been treated.
When you consider the mask mandates, restrictions, lockdowns, and non-stop fear mongering of the news, you see a population getting conditioned to being controlled and relinquishing freedoms out of fear and the human drive for acceptance. When you examine what are being proposed as solutions to or outcomes of the COVID problem, such as mass injections, global digital identification systems, and invasive health and behavior monitoring, the larger agenda becomes clearer. It starts to look a lot like the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Fourth Industrial Revolution, which the WEF's Great Reset is ushering in thanks to the declared pandemic.
As noted by WEF founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”
The pandemic was the crisis needed to catalyze a massive shift toward centralized control and expanded government power, which un-elected globalists have dreamed of for decades.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is a digital transformation "unlike anything humankind has experienced before." According to the WEF, it is "characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres." Under the auspices of sustainable development and human prosperity, it describes a society of greater automation, greater connectivity, more advanced artificial intelligence, and more comprehensive integration of technology into every aspect of our lives, including our human bodies. A view into this world is captured in the title to a Forbes article contributed by a WEF member: "Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better." To some, this hyper-digitalized and equalized life may sound appealing or at least entertaining. However, the potential benefits could come at a steep cost.
As stated on the WEF website, these technological advancements also mean governments can "increase their control over populations, based on pervasive surveillance systems and the ability to control digital infrastructure." Digital ID systems, of which vaccine passports are the obvious precursor, have the potential to consolidate data from every online interaction, as well as health status and biometric data, to form a digital identity unique to each individual. Advocates say providing digital identification to millions lacking legal status could increase access to valuable services. However, the same technology that offers access can also take it away.
A WEF report states, "This digital identity determines what products, services and information we can access – or, conversely, what is closed off to us."
Through the eradication of privacy, we can be tracked, targeted, and locked out of our bank accounts, turned away from borders, and prevented from engaging online, because our behavior, as observed by those controlling our data, runs afoul of the state or we fall victim to hackers. China is already walking down this path with its social credit system, where people are punished when they behave contrary to government guidelines and social norms. The nightmares of dystopian fiction are coming to life, in the guise of a totalitarian techno-utopia.
Another element of the Fourth Industrial Revolution being ushered in by the Great Reset is the "Internet of Bodies" (IoB). The WEF notes that "extensive IoB technologies and data [are] being enlisted for the surveillance and tracking of coronavirus." IoB is described by the WEF as transforming the "human body into a new technology platform." It involves "an unprecedented number of connected devices and sensors being affixed to or even implanted and ingested into the human body," which generate "tremendous amounts of biometric and human behavioural data."
A WEF video for the Fourth Industrial Revolution claims, "Our bodies will be so high tech, we won't be able to really distinguish between what is natural and what is artificial."
That is the transhuman agenda in a nutshell--the merging of human and machine. When everything about us is known, captured in endless data streams, we become predictable and malleable, such that our thoughts and behavior can be manipulated. When we know that everything we say and do is monitored, we adjust our actions to conform to prevailing norms. We can become agents of the state without even realizing it.
Of course, transhumanism could have its benefits. These agendas wouldn't get very far if there was nothing positive about them. But we need to ask ourselves what we are giving up and whether we really trust the powerful people at the helm of global governance to set the course for humanity. Do the billionaires have our best interests at heart? Do multinational corporations and global financial institutions know what is right for us? Do we agree with the further consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the few? Are we being given a choice?
The Pandemic Playbook
When we consider global control as a possible end game, the actions and decisions surrounding the pandemic start to make sense. We see a choreographed dance among government, global health and science institutions, mass media, pharmaceutical companies, and global elites to instill fear, isolate us from one another, limit our freedoms, create greater dependency on government aid, concentrate market share in large companies, and submit to their solutions for ending the crisis. We see a pandemic and pandemic response that is eerily similar to the coronavirus outbreak simulated in October 2019 by the WEF in partnership with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as part of Event 201. That event, as well as similar simulations in previous years like Clade X, concluded that the world was not prepared for such pandemics. Yet instead of readying us, these events seemed only to prophesize what was to come. The Deep State was teasing their own plan.
As reported by The Sociable:
...just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:
- Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
- The collapse of many industries
- Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
- A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
- Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
- The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
- A global lack of personal protective equipment
- The breakdown of international supply chains
- Mass unemployment
- Rioting in the streets
Like those simulations, what follows is a hypothetical playbook for how a pandemic could be engineered to heighten fear and increase control. It attempts to explain what has been done and why, based on publicly available research, with the specific goal of identifying the role of mass injection in furthering their agenda.
Taken together, these plays suggest that the pandemic did not just provide the opportunity for the Great Reset and advancement of global control but was planned and initiated by those seeking to transform human society and human biology, including our human DNA, for their own ends.
The pandemic is by no means their only vehicle for seeking greater wealth, power, and control, but it is an extremely important one.
For some, the idea that there is a secret alliance of wealthy and powerful people driving world events and pulling the strings for their own gain is too disruptive to their view of reality, too undermining to their sense of autonomy and security, and frankly too frightening and devastating. We like to see the good in people and don't want to believe humanity can be that evil. Nor do our egos want to admit that we have been deceived and duped into complicity or that we find comfort in being controlled. We doubt that something so massively devious could be so flawlessly orchestrated as to remain hidden, even to those working for corrupted institutions. Yet for other people, the evidence of that quest for power and domination is all around us, not only in our modern history but our present day. As Edward Snowden said, "The worst conspiracies are in plain sight." COVID-19 is a case in point. Because of fear and blind trust in authorities, as well as ambivalence, many people cannot or will not see what is unfolding right under our noses. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening or that there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Is this a conspiracy theory? Unequivocally yes. This is a hypothesis, supported by research and observations, that seeks to demonstrate that the authorities are lying to us, which is all a conspiracy theory really is. It proposes that things are purposefully not as they seem, with the goal of benefiting the few at the expense of the many.
Play #1: Release a contagious pathogen similar to existing viruses.
We know there is a contagious biological agent that is circulating around the globe, transmitted primarily through airborne particles, and making people sick. There are those who deny that it exists, but it seems incontrovertible that there is something causing widespread illness, albeit minor illness for the majority who are infected. Yet we still don't definitively know where it came from and how it became a pandemic.
Despite initially censoring and slandering scientists who raised the lab hypothesis all along, there appears to be growing willingness to investigate the possibility that the agent was created in lab, with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) being the most likely candidate given what we currently know. The WIV is a laboratory controlled by the Chinese government, focused on coronaviruses, and located in close proximity to where the first cases were discovered. In addition to this circumstantial evidence, scientists and researchers have examined the pathogen's genome and concluded that SARS-CoV-2 "shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus." Their report claims that, "The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months."
Despite previous attempts by those with conflicts of interest, like Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, to malign the lab origin theory, ongoing investigations may confirm that SARS-CoV-2 was most likely manmade, perhaps through research funded by Dr. Fauci's National Institute of Health. Just as the lab origin theory was discredited by so-called experts, like those recruited by Daszak, we can expect the media to censor suggestions that the pathogen was deliberately released as opposed to the result of an accident.
The fact is that neither the accidental nor deliberate release theory is currently backed by any solid, publicly-available evidence, meaning neither can be dismissed. The truth demands that we give equal consideration to both possibilities, however horrific this would be as a premeditated act.
When we consider not only the research that was being done in these labs but how well-adapted the pathogen was to humans from the beginning, as well as how the pandemic was used to manipulate human society, it seems plausible that the pathogen was purposefully created and released into the world. This might have been the necessary first step to put the larger plan into motion.
Play #2: Create perception of significant health risk and mass casualty.
For mass vaccination to appear like a reasonable response, the illness must present a grave and significant risk to society at large, such that the benefits of a vaccine outweigh the costs. One possibility is that COVID represents this level of existential threat. Certainly, many people watched beloved family members, friends, and colleagues suffer and die from the illness. That pain is real. Frontline health workers have been through hell and back. That should be honored. But, as far as outbreaks and pandemics go, perhaps it was portrayed worse than it actually was because there were benefits to it appearing so.
The fact is that we don't have reliable data on actual cases, deaths, and mortality rates. To be fair, some of this uncertainty is inherent in the testing process. For example, false positives and negatives are a problem for most health tests and COVID testing was no different. There were stories like those from Erykah Badu, where one nostril tested positive and the other negative, and Elon Musk, where he got both positive and negative results from rapid tests taken the same day. One medical paper found the following:
Even though their overall likelihood appears low, a multitude of tests during a period of relatively low incidence could lead to a situation in which half of the tests are false positives, particularly in the event of flawed internal and external quality controls.
The paper went on to propose that, out of an abundance of caution, "any and every positive PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 test result must be managed as though it were a true and proven positive." Similarly, suspected residual RNA and other factors also meant that people could still test positive months after making a full recovery. In this scenario, someone could test positive for the pathogen but not be at risk of reinfection or transmitting it to others. Essentially, those people could be double-counted as COVID cases. On the other hand, many cases likely went unreported because infected people never got tested. Thus, our accounting of total COVID cases is problematic.
There were also inconsistencies in what was reported as a death. The initial guidance from the White House Coronavirus Task Force was: “If someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.” The implication is that someone could come to the hospital with cancer, a heart attack, or other underlying condition and that person's death would be attributed to COVID if they tested positive. The guidance evolved to report it as cause of death when a contributing factor, but determining that was left to the doctor's discretion. Consistent with this guidance, two recent papers published in the journal Hospital Pediatrics found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%. On the flip side, the New York Times reported that Governor Andrew Cuomo deliberately under-reported COVID deaths in nursing homes. It is clear that the numbers were manipulated.
As such, the death numbers are flawed. Because we don't have accurate case and death numbers, any statistics that are derived from them, like the case fatality rate or infection fatality rate, will also be suspect. However, scientists' estimates place the infection fatality rate outside of nursing homes at 0.26%, far below anything that would justify the draconian measures taken.
We do know that the vast majority of people who are infected experience minor to moderate symptoms and make a full recovery. It is generally understood that the people most at risk of severe illness from COVID include but are not limited to those who:
- are over 65,
- have other illnesses or diseases like diabetes, cancer, or chronic lung disease,
- are immuno-compromised, or
- are overweight or obese.
Basically, people who are already vulnerable are at elevated risk of becoming critically ill or dying from COVID (and many other illnesses). Clearly, there is a benefit to having options available for high risk people to protect themselves. A shot that lowers the mortality risk of COVID would certainly be one of them. But for the vast majority of people for which COVID would be akin to a cold or flu or who have already been infected, the shot could be considered unnecessary and certainly within the realm of personal choice. Yet that is clearly not the official message.
Play #3: Stoke fear and institute control measures.
The disruption to our lives had to be extreme enough that we would do almost anything for it to end. By manipulating numbers and presenting scary images of a mounting body count, mass media pummeled us with reasons to be afraid, which made us more receptive to being controlled and willing to take an experimental shot. News organizations had a clear negativity bias, with networks using fear tactics to keep us tuning in. For example, in an accidental admission, the technical director at CNN, Charlie Chester, told an undercover journalist about how the network functions as propaganda and actively stokes fear for ratings, like playing up COVID death rates and ignoring more positive statistics like recovery rates or putting deaths into the context of other seasonal illnesses. As Chester said, "If it bleeds, it leads."
Another example from the UK showed that Boris Johnson followed the lead of a government scientist who inflated a worst-case scenario of projected deaths by a factor of more than four to justify a return to blanket lockdowns. Even the UK's Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) later admitted:
"There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian."
The politics of fear were in full force, with nearly every talking head captivating us with stories of the dangers of the disease, as well as how easy it was to catch it. In the early days of the pandemic, we were told that the pathogen could be transmitted through surfaces, with the pathogen potentially living for days on certain materials. We were also told that healthy people, also known as "asymptomatic" people, could spread the disease, making anyone a potential vector. It was even suggested that we could catch the disease outdoors, especially if someone passed us running. More recent studies have cast serious doubt on all of those claims, recognizing that the risk of infection and illness is greatest when there is significant viral loading, extended duration of exposure, and preexisting vulnerabilities. Was this information truly not known or suspected in the beginning? Were establishment "experts" doing the best they could or falling in line to protect or advance their careers?
Building on our fear and borrowing a play from the Chinese Communist Party, policymakers across the world instituted unprecedented restrictions, culminating in near total lockdown, with people unauthorized to leave their homes except for limited, approved reasons. With many physical storefronts forced to close, countless small and mid-sized businesses that were either unable to offer their services remotely or not set up for online commerce went out of business, leaving their employees without jobs and dependent on government aid. Yet at the same time that local economies were being decimated, billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg silently and radically increased their wealth. The vast majority of the pandemic winners were those with ties to large technology corporations.
On the one hand, these policies could be viewed as a cautious response to an unprecedented public health emergency. On the other, a major new study by German scientists at Munich University found that lockdowns had no effect on reducing the country’s coronavirus infection rate. Similar studies have also found no direct correlation between lockdown policies and COVID cases, while some experts predict "a million excess deaths over the next two decades because of lockdowns." Instead of protecting us and our livelihoods, these policies acclimated us to being told what we could and could not do. In our fear over our safety, we generally accepted a degree of control that might have seemed unimaginable absent this intervention. While the lockdowns had a silver lining for some people, others suffered greatly from isolation, depression, and stress, not to mention financial hardship and forgoing routine medical care or disease treatments. Even those who prospered during this time lost freedoms that we have yet to regain. Freedom from coercion for a largely unnecessary shot is one of them.
Play #4: Promote a vaccine as the only solution to end the pandemic and its restrictions.
In light of what appeared to be a public health crisis spiraling out of control, all hope was placed on a vaccine. We were told early on by Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, and many others that a vaccine would be what ends the so-called pandemic. Consistent with this guidance, then-President Trump authorized Operation Warp Speed to accelerate vaccine development and manufacturing. As part of this streamlining, several drug companies applied for approval under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) provision. To be authorized absent the normal safety standards, “the FDA must determine that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine.” Despite so much that still isn't known, the experimental treatments were approved, including mRNA based injections that have never been approved for human use.
A vaccine is one option for preventing or limiting the severity of disease, but it is not the only one. Many concerned doctors searched for treatments to help their patients and gathered a growing body of evidence on effective ways to prevent illness and restore health. For example, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) wrote a guide to prevention and home-based treatment of COVID. One of its recommendations was to take zinc supplements. This is supported by medical research, which found that zinc can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in the body. A January 2021 medical study found, "Hospitalized COVID-19 patients taking supplemental zinc in addition to standard therapy were reported to have lower death rates, and patients with lower zinc levels on admission had higher mortality." Yet this simple and cheap option was largely overlooked.
Other treatments noted in the guide include anti-viral agents, such as Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin. One treatment example is referred to as the Zelenko Protocol, which is a combination of zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. Based in the New York City metro area, Dr. Zelenko faced an early surge in COVID patients and openly shared what he was learning in the field, including testifying in front of a Senate committee. In a peer reviewed study, his protocol, when used early, was found to decrease hospitalizations by 84% in high risk patients and resulted in a five fold reduction in death. He reports that thousands of doctors around the globe are successfully using his method. And he is not alone in finding treatment combinations that work. Yet despite these results, the FDA and mainstream media continue to be negative about these treatments, even as they saved lives. This doctor, who only sought to help his patients, is banned from Twitter and YouTube. A Yale professor with a Ph.D. in mathematical modeling of infectious epidemics faced similar attacks when he published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology touting hydroxychloroquine as an effective early treatment of COVID.
By favoring a vaccine and sabotaging alternative treatments, hundreds of thousands of people died who perhaps didn't need to. Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, told senators in a November 2020 hearing that the U.S. “could have saved half of the lives lost” if COVID treatment protocols had not been suppressed and falsely criticized. By March 2021, McCullough found that “as many as 85% of COVID deaths could have been prevented through early treatment." That is a lot of unnecessary fatalities. One can wonder if those fatalities were needed to make the case for the shot.
Play #5: Disguise mRNA technology as a vaccine to pave the way for human interference.
This is where it really starts to get interesting. Is the push for mass injection more about what it does to our body (and potentially our consciousness) than preventing COVID-19? Many doctors concede that what is being injected in people's arms does not meet the definition of a vaccine. A traditional vaccine is designed to trigger an immune response (i.e. antibodies) by introducing the virus into the body. Those antibodies protect someone should they be exposed to the virus in the future through specific immunity.
In contrast, Moderna's 10-K SEC filing states that, "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." According to Moderna, the shots function like an "operating system" where the mRNA introduces genetic code that instructs ribosomes to make synthetic protein or antibodies. Moderna states, "Utilizing these instruction sets gives our investigational mRNA medicines a software-like quality." Our cells become factories producing proteins according to the programmed code. In the case of the COVID shots, our bodies start churning out the synthetic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to produce an immune response. While the pharmaceutical companies say that this process only lasts a few weeks or months, some doctors believe the data is lacking and it could stay active for much longer, which could have serious negative effects.
Because the specific formulas are proprietary and the technology was previously untested in humans, the doctors and scientists who would be in a position to study their composition and effects are limited in their ability to do so. But that has not stopped several courageous and concerned doctors and researchers from trying to understand how the shot could affect the human body and forming theories of what might be afoot.
Dr. Carrie Madej is one of them. She is an Internal Medicine Specialist with over 20 years of experience in the medical field, including directing two large medical clinics in Georgia. She graduated from the Kansas City University Of Medicine Bioscience College of Osteopathic Medicine in 2001 and has studied vaccines since that time. While she has been slandered in the media, she offers an informed perspective on how substances in the mRNA shots could be used to alter our DNA and allow us to be interacted with by external stimuli in ways we don't fully understand nor have consented to.
Her focus is on the lipid nanoparticles in the shots, which are microscopic organisms that act like tiny computers and encase the synthetic RNA to trick the body into accepting it. Also referred to as hydrogel, this technology was developed by the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program. That this research is housed in the DOD highlights how these technologies can be used both as defenses and as weapons. A 2018 DARPA report states:
...virtually any person anywhere might experiment with genetic modifications. Much of that research has positive ends, but all biotechnologies have the potential to be dual-use. And there is always the risk of unintended consequences. The application of biotechnologies by an adversary is an area where the United States could be most surprised as a nation, but it is also a source of great potential, where the United States could develop a host of new surprises of its own.
Might the shots be based on one of these biotechnology surprises? The report mentions embedded hydrogel sensors that continuously measure body chemistry and make that data available in real time. The stated use case is troop readiness, but Dr. Madej notes that the sensors act like an antenna transmitting and receiving frequencies and impulses from external sources, meaning it could interact with 5G, smart devices, and other transmitting devices. More than just data transfer, one can imagine this "operating system" technology potentially being used to influence someone's behavior through impulses or affect health through activation or deactivation of aspects of our DNA. Dr. Madej also says that hydrogel produces its own voltage, which is a form of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) which can affect red blood cells and mutate DNA. Recent preliminary experiments show a difference between healthy red blood cells and those subject to the shot. The bottom line is that the hydrogel technology has myriad use cases and applications, with one being biological and behavioral surveillance and manipulation.
Many were quick to refute that mRNA could interact with and permanently alter DNA. However, the truth is that we don’t definitively know. Researchers at Harvard and MIT postulated that “SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome.” This means that the coronavirus RNAs can potentially become part of our DNA. Because the vaccines copy part of the coronavirus RNA, then the vaccine could potentially integrate into our DNA as well, perhaps targeting certain genes. Additionally, viral immunologist and associate professor Byram Bridle, reviewed Pfizer's biodistribution study and discovered:
"the COVID spike protein [from the shot] gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination and then accumulates in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in 'quite high concentrations' in the ovaries," where it can cause damage.
Thus, the spike protein may not stay in the immediate injection site as originally thought. These and other concerns have now been voiced by the inventor of the mRNA technology used in some of the shots.
It is also possible that the shots are not just the pretense for expansion of digital identity platforms but also contain IoB technology or set the stage for the introduction of IoB technologies such as markers and sensors through booster shots, supposedly in response to emerging variants. Dr. Michael Yeadon was vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer before co-founding a biotech firm eventually purchased by Novartis. He claims the so-called variants are at least 99.7% identical to the original, which means "that amount of difference is absolutely not possibly able to represent itself to you as a different virus." As such, anyone with a previous infection or the shot is already protected against mutated forms of the pathogen. Yet, Pfizer and Moderna are already testing and manufacturing booster shots and the media is priming people to prepare for at least annual shots. What will be in those boosters is anyone's guess. In that uncertainty is the potential for modification and manipulation of our human genome and further exercise of control through biological means.
If there were no other agendas at play with the shots, why target children and young adults who are at virtually no risk from COVID? Why force employees and students to get the shot when there is currently no strong evidence that the vaccines actually prevent transmission? Why insist that those already infected, and thus already immune, still get the shot? Why did the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which does not use mRNA technology, face the greatest scrutiny and bad press? Why portray the unvaccinated as killers if the shot supposedly protects those who took the jab? Why is not getting the shot not being respected as a personal health decision?
Play #6: Downplay risks and side effects of the shot.
The prevailing media message is that the shots are safe. While we don't actually have enough data to establish long-term safety, it is true that most people receiving the shots do not suffer from immediate significant side effects. However, despite attempts to gloss over reports of adverse reactions, the shots are not without risks. As of May 28, 2021, the voluntary, government-funded Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has captured 5,888 deaths believed to be linked to the shots, which is a very small percentage of the nearly 300 million doses administered in the US, even if understated by large margin. However, for most people, the risk of dying from the shot may be higher than for COVID.
VAERS is also tracking reported side effects, totaling 329,021 total adverse events as of May 28, 2021. Adverse events include Bell's Palsy, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, anaphylaxis, blood clotting disorders, cardiac disorders like myocarditis or pericarditis, and miscarriages or premature births. Similarly, there are increasing reports that the shot disrupts a woman's menstrual cycle. Moreover, Dr. Michael Yeadon, among others, have raised the possibility of infertility. Specifically, he explains:
"The mRNA vaccine triggers your body to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and spike proteins in turn contain syncytin-homologous proteins that are essential for the formation of placenta. If a woman’s immune system starts reacting against syncytin-1, then there is the possibility she could become infertile."
Whether these adverse effects are indications of other bodily systems being weakened and compromised is currently unknown, meaning we can't say it is true or false.
Some have speculated that the shots are a form of population control, which begs the question of why anyone would want humanity to experience a massive die-off. One explanation is that no one actually wants depopulation but it is an inescapable outcome of dwindling resources from climate change or other factors and growing demand from a booming population. Thus, a depopulation agenda could be trying to forestall an impending ecological collapse by reducing the strain we put on natural resources. In this scenario, population control is actually a human survival tactic, which is how Bill Gates talks about it. However, depopulation is also an enabler of greater control by the few of the many. A world with fewer people would be easier to manipulate and dominate by consolidating power and reducing the risk of rogue actors gaining influence and organizing against the system.
If the shots do foster depopulation, we would likely not see evidence of it right away, as people would stop getting the shot if there was a high risk of dying from it. Presumably anyone wanting to eradicate a large swath of humanity would do it in a way that isn't clearly traceable back to a single cause, let alone one they manufactured, lest they be found out. We would likely only know in hindsight when we see death rates climb over time. Tying heightened mortality back to the shots would be difficult, especially if the initial shot or boosters can send genetic code to cause a multitude of illnesses that may not seem related to the shot, like liver failure or cancer.
As Dr. Yeadon hypothesized, it would be possible for the booster shots to contain additional genetic sequencing that could cause injury over a longer period or more rapid failure when a certain trigger is encountered. Similarly, should SARS-CoV-2 spike protein production occur over an extended period or never turn off, Dr. Lawrence Palevsky warns that it could be damaging to human health based on known effects of the spike protein, including brain inflammation; heart attacks; lung, liver, and kidney disease; and blood clotting. Yet none of these potential long-term implications are being reported and openly discussed. Though perhaps a recent op-ed by reputable doctors in the Wall Street Journal, highlighting the politicization of the shots and censorship of observed risks, will help bring more voices into the open.
Play #7: Partner with public and private sectors to aggressively push vaccines and silence dissent.
It seems everywhere you look you are being directed to get vaccinated. The search bar in Google Maps prompts you to locate vaccination sites nearby, banners and signs in public and private spaces are telling you to get the shot, and businesses might ban you from entering their facilities or charge you a much higher ticket cost if you are not vaccinated. In addition to penalizing those who are not vaccinated, many states and businesses are offering unprecedented incentives, from free beer and donuts to a chance at $1 million, to get the shot. Recently, the government authorized those with the shot to forgo masks when inside, despite acknowledgments that have come to light in Dr. Fauci's emails, as well as other studies that masks are generally ineffective at preventing exposure. Giving insight into their motivations, the government reported that vaccination rates jumped following this change in policy.
Folks, if you’re fully vaccinated — you no longer need to wear a mask.— President Biden (@POTUS) May 13, 2021
If you’re not vaccinated yet — go to https://t.co/4MYpWqXVVo to find a shot, and mask up until you’re fully vaccinated. pic.twitter.com/qcyG2WyCG2
President Biden set a target that 70% of Americans receive the shot by July 4, 2021. Consistent with this goal, the messaging from those at the highest levels are not only linking the return of normal life to the vaccine but blaming the unvaccinated, including children, for projected increases in cases and the possible return of restrictions. Those who haven't received the shot are being treated as scapegoats, unapologetically being shamed and ridiculed for their personal health choices. In a move reminiscent of Apartheid, we seem to be edging toward a segregated society where those abstaining from the shot are treated as second class citizens. And all for a shot that only lessens clinical symptoms, not prevent transmission.
Yet to even repeat the CDC's and pharmaceutical company's own studies that discuss the unknowns and limitations of the shots is to be censored. Under the auspices of preventing misinformation, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Medium are banning content that raises questions about the shots or discourages people from getting them. In just one example, a data center technician at Facebook came forward to reveal the company is censoring posts that could discourage someone from getting the shot. According to the whistleblower, without user consent, Facebook is using an algorithm to demote posts and flag them for potential removal. This is actually not a big secret as the censorship is government-sanctioned. But the result is that the public is only presented with the official narrative, which is that all good and responsible people will roll up their sleeves with no questions asked.
The media has done a masterful job at discrediting those who dare to speak out and galvanizing people against them. They bring to bear other so-called experts who will support the prevailing view. They enlist fact checkers who debunk concerns not by doing their own research but by referencing people and studies who are already playing along, already compromised. We saw this self-referential cycle in the reversal by PolitiFact of its initial claim that Dr. Li-Meng Yan's lab origin theory was false. The fact checkers deemed the claim false when the establishment was telling a different story and followed suit when the establishment admitted the theory was plausible. Similarly, we saw Kristian Andersen's paper in Nature Medicine become the authoritative source on natural, zoonotic origin, used to debunk the lab origin theory. However, journalists have noted that Andersen flipped his original position to suit Dr. Fauci, as revealed in Fauci's emails, and later received nearly $2 million in funding from the NIH. What is called fact-checking is more like enforcement and endorsement of mainstream narratives. Might this be a foreshadow of what is to come when the truth comes out about the shots?
Admittedly, it is difficult for the average person to accept the possibility that our own governments and those charged with protecting our health and wellbeing could be so malevolent as to engineer a crisis that would kill some of its citizens while disempowering and disenfranchising the rest of us. It is almost unfathomable that the solution to this crisis would be a shot that could compromise our health, interfere with our reproductive capabilities, modify our DNA, and make us easier to control. It is more comforting, mentally and emotionally, to believe what we are told, to chalk unfortunate events up to chance, coincidence, or human error, and trust that everything will be ok in the end. But this complicity and naivete only sentences us to greater submission.
Some who read this will cite a lack of evidence or proof or say it is imagining a pattern that isn't there. Perhaps some will concede that we overreacted and took actions that were later found to be unnecessary but well-intentioned based on what we knew and didn't know at the time. Theories of cognitive dissonance say that when new information does not align with established beliefs, the information will be rejected. That could hold here. And certainly, all of us on the outside are at a disadvantage in exposing what is carefully intended and protected to stay hidden. But what is outlined here is possible. That it is possible and plausible should be reason enough to question what we are being told and allow open debate free of censorship and derision. This is especially true when it comes to injecting ourselves and our children with substances based on new technologies that have no human track record and have the potential to be used in novel but nefarious ways. In this grand experiment, we need to preserve the right to opt out. The fact that this is getting harder and harder to do is a glaring red flag that we would be foolish to ignore. Our very future may be at stake.
What can we do? Perhaps most importantly, we can continue to question official narratives coming from those in power and those who serve their interests, including so-called experts and fact checkers, and hone our discernment. We can support the brave doctors and scientists who are speaking up in larger numbers to voice their concerns. We can fight to protect informed consent and medical freedom and challenge discriminatory efforts like vaccine passports. When faced with the decision on whether to get the shot, we should read the studies, consider multiple perspectives, and make the choice that is best for us. As events continue to unfold, we should all pay close attention and connect the dots to see what is really at play.
Illustration by Kelsey King
Editor's Note: I did this research to help me make sense of what was going on with what felt like an overly heavy-handed appeal to roll up my sleeve and understand what might be at stake with a decision to get the shot. I am sharing it with you as additional information to consider as you weigh your options. My goal is not to change anyone's mind, scare anyone, or shame anyone who said yes to the shot. This is simply my perspective based on the research I did and what I see unfolding.
Also, it was out of scope to provide further evidence or discussion of the Deep State or Cabal. However, there are plenty of books, videos, and online sites devoted to it. One recommendation is to watch the documentary, Thrive I.
The Free Bird Newsletter
Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.Subscribe