Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[DrEvil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA42VrqGKd4

I've finally received my first Phizer shot!

Make sure to get the second shot in your other arm for optimal 5G coverage.

[DrEvil]

This is a very important, critical detail.

Prior to Covid, a "case" was defined as one who exhibited symptoms. This nonsense about labeling someone as a "case", based ONLY on a positive PCR result -- while showing ZERO symptoms, and REMAINING ASYMPTOMATIC -- is one of the many canards with respect to how numbers and ACTUAL case counts are manipulated.

Canard indeed. Another word would be lies. PCR tests are a joke for determining actual cases. The major media have done a poor job of asking questions and informing the public about this "test" and how the results have inflated the "cases." With all the bright minds on RI I'm surprised this even has to be discussed over and over to explain. Seriously people.

How exactly is that supposed to inflate the numbers by half a million? Did every doctor and coroner in the US become incompetent at their jobs overnight?

Ummmm hello, you know what money is, right? Here is the U.S. medicine and health care if more about stats and dollars. Some still have this notion that doctors and the medical establishment is really about caring for us. They are welcome to their unicorn fantasies. Take into account how much money hospitals got per patient that was either diagnosed, and better yet for them, died. A patient hospitalized who dies and has any indication that the person had the Corona virus in them and the death certificate could have it listed, EVEN if it was NOT the cause of death.

Sure, okay, let's assume that every doctor and coroner in the US isn't incompetent, merely corrupt and criminal, happily churning out falsified death certificates to enrich their bosses, how about the UK, Brazil, Mexico and India? All have public health care systems, all have leaders keen on downplaying the pandemic, and all have huge death tolls. Do they all have a secret bet who can make their country look the worst?

The idea that it's being overblown for financial/political/Great Reset/5GmindcontrolGodthestupiditburns reasons might be plausible in one or two countries, but every country on the planet? Russia, China, India, the UK and the US are in cahoots, or they're all being fooled by the Davos Crew and the WHO?

The whole narrative falls apart with only cursory examination. It's either being run by someone with the power to dictate reality worldwide, or it's fucking stupid.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

All countries have been manipulating data to varying degrees.

I sent charts about India already. India's numbers have been presented out of context relative to their population count and other factors*, all in continuance of the fear and propaganda that will simply NOT relent. We are dealing with vile entities, to put it as plainly and simply as possible. The sooner we all realize egregious lies are being told, the sooner we can, collectively, stop the madness.

The likely reality, however, is that many will continue to subscribe to the bullshit. Years will pass. Future generations will look back and wonder why, similar to how we look back at the late 20s and 30s, and wonder how so many were led astray, how so many subscribed to sinister lies.


*interesting, too, that one of the charts I previously shared showcase an increase in deaths along the same trajectory as "vaccines" being doled out. Know this: these shots are not what they claim to be. Wait and see.

From page 169 of this thread:

Correlation? At a minimum, [dying] shortly after taking a shot is not anomalous.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Lisa Brackenridge, former nurse, discusses life in the NHS under the Covid policy agenda.



Snippet from video:

Okay well, one of the first things that i started to notice was that the normal flu screening had been more or less abandoned. So during my whole time from january 2020 to january 2021 i was seeing a lot of people coming in with a respiratory illness, and normally they'd be given a flu screen which has eight different pathogens that are tested for and and then quite often a blood culture might be done as well, which pinpoints the specific antibiotic or treatment that is needed. Now i only saw about five or six of these flu screens done during that whole year which is extremely unusual.

I've worked in infection control for for a clinical trial which lasted a year and you know there are flu screens left right and center for people with respiratory illness .

Okay, i mean people will be aware that flu the statistics on flu have just fallen off the cliff, flows disappeared from the official statistics and this has been somewhat unbelievably held as the great benefit of of social distancing and mask wearing, although simultaneously not working for COVID, which is a very strange disconnect... so you were seeing a clinical change. Was there any explanation was there any official notification that there was a different policy regarding testing for flu?

No, we we get notifications frequently, you know on a daily basis; if policies do change via email it's via the NHS email, and i didn't see any such notification, no.

That's, this is strange and interesting, because of course we're getting other reports of changes in policy and changes in clinical practice and there's never any paperwork backing it up, down to very early in the in the process. I had notification indirectly from a scottish hospital... that the policy was, everyone over 45 was functionally a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), but there was no paperwork, there was no official line on this it was then deniable but the information I got is that that's what was happening, what was told to the the clinical staff in a little meeting in a little room but it doesn't seem to exist in terms of the paper trail, it's very strange.

Right, so you've just reminded me , I did a BLS training (Basic Life Support) which is CPR, and I did that in around about april (2020) and I was told by the facilitator: we are DNRing everybody who is 65 and over and I said, 'well surely we'll we'll be doing that only if the ITU and HDU units are overwhelmed', and he told me in no uncertain terms 'no, we're doing it currently', at which point my jaw hit the floor and I looked at my colleagues and they said nothing.

that is that is well it's confirmation, what we have, but astonishing all the same..

[alwyn]

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/c ... 6+Saturday

In this interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,1 reviews how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.

He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM. After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program.

He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S., when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bioanxiety management.

As he points out, he's an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper2 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, "COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective," which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.

Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies

The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:

What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea. We couldn't validate any of the data coming out of China. There was just no independent way to do it. What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.

That was the main thing coming out of that data. So, we were expecting the same kind of trends here … I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.

What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying. It was concerning, because the variance was growing with each day. We have an old saying: 'Garbage in equals garbage out.' And that was the concern, because we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.

Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data. That's where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.

What was incredibly concerning about this was that it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment. That became increasingly problematic. We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there's a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.

Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It's the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths. Henele explains:

They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death.

What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, 'We're going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we're going to do a 180 for this single disease …' The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, 'You have to count this as COVID-19.' That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that's what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …
Read the Full Article
........

just dropping this here

[dada]

Sometimes I think the argument here is basically over how much of a role the workaday tragedy of planet earth's kafkaesque bureaucracy plays in shaping world events.

[conniption]

RT
(embedded links)

Normalising the abnormal: From ‘We’re not planning Covid passports’ to ‘They may be needed long term’ in 3 easy months

Neil Clark
is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

30 Apr, 2021

It’s now being suggested that Covid vaccine passports may be needed for the long term in the UK, just three months after the vaccines minister explicitly denied there were any plans to introduce vaccine passports.

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government programme, the old saying goes, but in light of the past 13 months, we should actually update that to “there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government programme which the government denies it is planning to introduce in the first place.”

The UK government didn’t want to do lockdown in March 2020, or so we were led to believe. The truth, as I highlighted previously, was that the government had already struck a £119-million contract with a major US advertising company urging people to ‘Stay Home, Stay Safe’ a full three weeks earlier.

And when lockdown was introduced it was famously for just three weeks. To “flatten the curve.” Strictly temporary. Thirteen months on, we still can’t sit inside a pub, or leave the country to go on holiday. And councils are recruiting ‘Covid marshals’ to enforce the rules into 2022! Imagine if someone had told you in March 2020 that in May 2021 this would be the case. You probably would have said they had been listening to too much David Icke. But that’s what’s happened. No wonder there was such a ferocious Matthew Hopkins-esque witch-hunter campaign last spring to ban Icke from social media.

Let’s talk face masks. Last spring we were told they weren’t of much use. The government wouldn’t be mandating them. But then we began to see a campaign to get the government to mandate masks.

As late as July 12, Michael Gove ruled out the government making them compulsory in shops.

And guess what happened? On July 14 the government announced that masks would be compulsory in shops. But of course, it would only be a temporary measure, and limited to shops.

Ten months on, face coverings are not only still compulsory in shops, but the mandate has been extended to many other places too. And note well, the government roadmap for the removal of restrictions makes no mention of if/when the mask mandate will ever be repealed. The Daily Telegraph reported this week that masks are likely to remain compulsory even after restrictions are supposed to be lifted on June 21. In March, Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at Public Health England, said face coverings (and social distancing) would be needed “certainly for a few years.” “People have got used to those lower-level restrictions now, and people can live with them, and the economy can still go on with those less severe restrictions in place,” she said. So much for “it’s only for fifteen minutes a week for a few weeks when you do the weekly shop in Tesco’s”.

Now it’s the turn of vaccine passports. Again, to even mention them in 2020 would have got you smeared as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ (or worse), even when the World Economic Forum was openly promoting its ‘Common Pass’ health passport scheme on social media.

At the turn of the year, though, even ‘mainstream’ voices began to express concern about the direction of travel. On January 12, UK Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi tweeted, in response to a Daily Telegraph report that vaccine passports would be trialed by thousands of Britons: “We have no plans to introduce vaccine passports. No one has been given or will be required to have a vaccine passport.”

Pretty categorical, eh?

Fast forward three months to April 5 and we have this on the government’s ‘Roadmap Reviews’ update:

The Government believes that COVID-status certification could have an important role to play both domestically and internationally, as a temporary measure.

Note how we’ve gone from calling them ‘vaccine passports’ to ‘Covid-status certification’ – because test results could be used for those who don’t have the vaccine. And note, too, the words “as a temporary measure.” A few days earlier, Culture Minister Oliver Dowden had also stressed this, saying of vaccine passports/Covid health certificates:

“Of course we would never look to do this on a permanent basis, it's just whether it might be a tool in the short term.”

But now, a month later, the idea of vaccine passports being a permanent feature of daily life is being mooted.

“I think they’re here for the long term, we’re finding our way forwards on these both internationally and domestically. But I think the system is going to settle down nationally and internationally as a long-term form of certification and protection,” Professor Christopher Dye, professor of epidemiology at Oxford, told MPs on the Science and Technology Committee this week.

Dye’s main concern seems to be about the language used to describe vaccine passports. “I think we need to describe this in terms of neutral language, and the term ‘passport’ and ‘certificate’ has been difficult,” he said, adding: “A word like ‘pass’ is more neutral.”

I’m sure if William Shakespeare had met the professor he’d have replied: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a vaccine passport as sour.”

See how it works? Whether we call it boiling the frog, gradualism, or salami tactics, the strategy is:

(a) to rule something out, with Establishment/Deep State gatekeepers smearing those warning of it as ‘cranks’, ’conspiracy theorists’, or ‘crackpots’ (or all three)

(b) It is confirmed that ‘Yes’, it will be implemented (and the ‘cranks’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ were actually right). But don’t worry, it’s only a temporary, limited measure – so what’s your problem?

(c) Once people get used to the measure, ‘temporary’ becomes not so temporary and ‘limited’ becomes not so limited.

The result is that an extreme, abnormal measure which no one would have supported a few months back, now, because of the strategy used to implement it, becomes accepted – and normalised.

With vaccine passports we need to be aware there is still the psyops element, that the powers-that-be currently want us to think their introduction is inevitable in order to drive up vaccine uptake among younger groups – which would then make vaccine passports workable. There is still a chance that the scheme won’t be implemented, and its supporters are currently calling high, when they hold no picture cards in their hand.

But if vaccine passports are introduced, even for the most limited circumstances, we can be sure of two things. The scheme won’t be ‘limited’ but will be expanded over time into a full-scale digitalised Chinese-style social credit restricted access system, AND it won’t be ‘temporary’.

‘Covid certificates for just one year’?

If that’s how it gets ‘sold’ to us, prepare for the longest year in history. Don’t forget, income tax was only meant to be a temporary measure, too, when first introduced in 1799. All the government needs – and has ever needed with vaccine passports – is a foot in the door.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/522633-uk-covi ... passports/

[Joe Hillshoist]

2020 not only didn’t have the highest mortality rate in the post war period, it didn't have the highest mortality rate in the 21st century either. 2020 ranked 9th, out of 20 consecutive years, for all cause mortality in England and Wales. It was the 11th least dangerous year in the last 50.

No it didn't. What it did have is the largest rate spike in 70 years ie a generation.

And what caused that rate spike, Joe? I -- and others -- raised a number of points about that, within this thread. If you believe it was due purely to COVID, you simply haven't been paying attention, or perhaps, have been watching too much network news. Time to tune out.

Under the paragraph headed PCR Does Not Mean COVID:

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are not the same thing. The detected presence of SARS-CoV-2 does not mean the person has or will develop COVID-19.

Therefore the attribution of mortality based solely upon a positive test result in no way proves the person died of COVID-19.

This is disingenuous at best.

Regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 test status, without a very accurate diagnosis of symptoms, suspected COVID-19 patients could be suffering from one among a range of ILI's. Again, a positive test result does not mean the patient died from COVID-19, even if they had corresponding symptoms.

What? A positive test shows the presence of the virus. There is nothing to that point to suggest otherwise. A positive test of what? He's only talked about signs and symptoms at this stage apart from referencing the PCR test. There is nothing in the writing under the heading to support the heading. Its just priming again.

Joe, I'm afraid you're misinformed [to put it charitably] on a number of the points raised in your output.

Given time constraints, I will focus this post on your comments Re: PCR tests, hence the quoted bit above.

First, I typed the following most recently:

I discussed cycle thresholds and the flaws of the PCR tests before, numerous times within this thread. Even the NY times covered the probability of false positives with PCR tests for any Ct over ~30 -- and the majority are indeed over 30 -- though it's difficult to obtain stats on this as Ct is rarely reported or included when results are doled out. They can be throttled up or down to achieve desired results.

Did you miss this? You didn't mention cycle thresholds in your missive, unless I overlooked it. Are you familiar with cycle thresholds and how they impact, in fact will increase, the probability of a positive PCR result, depending on threshold #?

This is a very important, critical detail.

Prior to Covid, a "case" was defined as one who exhibited symptoms. This nonsense about labeling someone as a "case", based ONLY on a positive PCR result -- while showing ZERO symptoms, and REMAINING ASYMPTOMATIC -- is one of the many canards with respect to how numbers and ACTUAL case counts are manipulated.

Yesterday, you typed:

Also BelS, what do you know about RT-PCR tests and false positives?

Let's see....

.

The below update is COUNTER to all prior 'official' guidance and messaging.

...

Directly from the WHO:

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

The guidance warned against diagnosing someone as having the virus just because one tests positive if the individual does not present with symptoms of COVID-19. It also warned about the high risk of false positives: “The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”

“As disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. The probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity,” per the WHO.

It also describes PCR tests merely as an “aid for diagnosis” and did not place any greater weight upon the results of PCR tests. “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

The new guidance for assessing the results of PCR COVID tests effectively means that there are additional steps to be taken before reporting that someone has tested positive for the virus. The WHO notes that “a new specimen should be taken and retested” and further stipulates that “health care” workers should weigh up the test result alongside real-world information, such as symptoms or “clinical observations,” and contact with any other infected individuals.

And this, which I typed one month prior to the above updated [Jan. 2021] guidance from the WHO:

.

"cases" does not = active instance of the virus, more often than not.

How many tested during the lockdown timeframe?
Of those who tested, how do we know what the Ct rate was compared to pre-lockdown?

We'll never know as they don't publish it.

Most tests set the cycle threshold (Ct) limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.

The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/heal ... WRX4lV0XlI

I recommend fully digesting the content in the above quote. It's essentially saying that MOST "cases" are false-positive, and further, the majority are NOT carriers of the virus.

Since Ct utilized in a given region are rarely, if ever, disclosed, it also means they can tweak the cycle count as preferred, which in turn would raise or lower 'positive cases' dramatically.

Ct around 40? Mostly false-positive results.
Ct around 30? Far less false-positives.

By withholding the disclosure of Ct, "case" numbers can be throttled up or down depending on desired reaction.

Something to keep in mind in the months ahead.

(For example: keep it at Ct ~40 prior to the "100 days" mask mandate; revise to Ct ~30 after the 100 days).

Just a theory, of course.

You need to do more/better homework, Joe. Let's revisit this in a few months, perhaps, when you may have a bit more clarity.

Sorry, meant false negatives...

[Joe Hillshoist]

Cycle threshold number determines the strength of the infection. If its above thirty its unlikely to be an infectious sample.

[DrEvil]

.

All countries have been manipulating data to varying degrees.

...snip...

This is the part I have a big problem with. WHY? Why is every country, of every conceivable political stripe, competing with each other in trashing their economies and making themselves look bad?

Also, how do you know? Can you cite evidence for each country?

[Harvey]

https://rumble.com/vg3drt-urgent-5-doctors-agree-that-covid-19-injections-are-bioweapons-and-discuss-.html

Ever since reports have surfaced in recent days that people who have chosen NOT to receive the experimental COVID-19 shots but have been exposed to those who have received them, and have suffered what appear to be infections coming from these fully "vaccinated" people, affecting mainly women who have reported menstruation difficulties, heavy bleeding, miscarriages, and reduction of breast milk, I have been watching my newsfeed to see if any of the dissenting doctors and scientists we feature regularly here at Health Impact News would address these issues.

Fortunately, a team of 5 doctors in the U.S., all of whom we have featured in the past here at Health Impact News and are highly qualified to address this topic, just held a round-table discussion a couple of days ago to address these issues.

The issues they discuss affect ALL of us in the U.S. (and around the world) right now, and it is imperative that you take 79 minutes of your time to watch this video.

Not only do these highly qualified doctors discuss why they think this is happening, they also give practical advice at the end about what we can be doing right now to protect ourselves and stop this attack on the human race by the Globalists seeking to reduce the world's population.

Every single one of these doctors believe that these shots are NOT vaccines, but bioweapons designed to kill human beings.

Video links at the page and here:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WAYyYeUS5bIP/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yAqECMEY3v7o/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QjLh2lVsvsZa/

etc

[Harvey]

Some deeply flakey moments in the above video, also some very cogent arguments too. Posted for discussion purposes.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

All countries have been manipulating data to varying degrees.

...snip...

This is the part I have a big problem with. WHY? Why is every country, of every conceivable political stripe, competing with each other in trashing their economies and making themselves look bad?

Also, how do you know? Can you cite evidence for each country?

"Case" counts and death counts consist of faulty metrics, at least in part, from the onset -- across regions. Any country following similar/same reporting criteria as recommended by the CDC are offering misleading metrics. Media for other nations are following similar propaganda tactics. There is data out there -- you can find it if due diligence is applied.
Believe what you wish, as I said before. What I type here doesn't 'change' anything. If you're relying on me as the arbiter of what's actually happening out there -- which clearly, you're not: your mind is already made up, and it's clear you haven't dedicated much time researching beyond sources that reinforce largely establishment narratives -- you won't get very far, since my function here is not to spoon feed.

By all this I mean: I've typed far more than enough here. Proceed as y'all deem fit. If you still need an anonymous handle in this obscure forum to "prove" that there are egregious lies being told, you're being dishonest, either with yourself*, or with your intent.

*if this is the case, it may not be a fully conscious phenomenon: it would be at least partially reflexive, depending on how strongly one ties themselves to their beliefs.

Some of you may retort that the above response may apply to me and my views on this as well, except, as I've already indicated: my views on this topic have evolved since the onset of these Big Lies. While I had reservations from the onset, I didn't get to where I am now without digging, and my perspective has been fine-tuned a number of times, particularly during those initial months, and especially as the 'goal posts' shifted in the narratives being doled out to us. This remains an evolving process. Nothing is fixed; I can't have it all right. No one can.

And yet a few of you continue to hold fast to the initial Lies told. There's no budging. Like dutiful soldiers, a number of you hold tightly to the narratives and will do your part to be (passively or actively) complicit in the damage wrought, to date and ongoing.

[Grizzly]

By all this I mean: I've typed far more than enough here. Proceed as y'all deem fit. If you still need an anonymous handle in this obscure forum to "prove" that there are egregious lies being told, you're being dishonest, either with yourself, or with your intent.

Hence the reason, I've just stopped engaging half the mofo's here...

[DrEvil]

.

All countries have been manipulating data to varying degrees.

...snip...

This is the part I have a big problem with. WHY? Why is every country, of every conceivable political stripe, competing with each other in trashing their economies and making themselves look bad?

Also, how do you know? Can you cite evidence for each country?

"Case" counts and death counts consist of faulty metrics, at least in part, from the onset -- across regions. Any country following similar/same reporting criteria as recommended by the CDC are offering misleading metrics. Media for other nations are following similar propaganda tactics. There is data out there -- you can find it if due diligence is applied.
Believe what you wish, as I said before. What I type here doesn't 'change' anything. If you're relying on me as the arbiter of what's actually happening out there -- which clearly, you're not: your mind is already made up, and it's clear you haven't dedicated much time researching beyond sources that reinforce largely establishment narratives -- you won't get very far, since my function here is not to spoon feed.

So, no evidence, only more vague obfuscations. You said every country does it? Again, how do you know? Have you really sat down and gone through the responses, reporting procedures and media coverage of every country on Earth, or are you just projecting your attitudes toward your own government and media onto everyone else?

You still haven't explained why everyone is doing this.

Btw: I'm not relying on you as an arbiter, I'm asking you questions in the hope that either: a) you say something worthwhile that helps make your position clearer and more plausible, or b) you realize you can't articulate a cogent argument beyond your gut feeling and realize your position might not be as strong as you think it is. You're constantly questioning the official narrative, but you also seem absolutely convinced of your own narrative. You should question both.

By all this I mean: I've typed far more than enough here. Proceed as y'all deem fit. If you still need an anonymous handle in this obscure forum to "prove" that there are egregious lies being told, you're being dishonest, either with yourself*, or with your intent.

Ah yes, the usual "I have nothing more to say" excuse (seriously, how many times have you said this by now, only for you to promptly forget it and keep posting?), trotted out whenever you don't want to, or can't answer simple questions. Also, the above paragraph is supremely ironic.

*if this is the case, it may not be a fully conscious phenomenon: it would be at least partially reflexive, depending on how strongly one ties themselves to their beliefs.

Some of you may retort that the above response may apply to me and my views on this as well, except, as I've already indicated: my views on this topic have evolved since the onset of these Big Lies. While I had reservations from the onset, I didn't get to where I am now without digging, and my perspective has been fine-tuned a number of times, particularly during those initial months, and especially as the 'goal posts' shifted in the narratives being doled out to us. This remains an evolving process. Nothing is fixed; I can't have it all right. No one can.

Yes, your views have evolved from being skeptical of the official narrative into full blown paranoid "it's all lies" illuminati-style grand narrative nonsense. It's the dumbest kind of conspiracy thinking, where anything that doesn't fit your narrative is either part of the plan, ignored or hand-waved away.

And yet a few of you continue to hold fast to the initial Lies told. There's no budging. Like dutiful soldiers, a number of you hold tightly to the narratives and will do your part to be (passively or actively) complicit in the damage wrought, to date and ongoing.

Ditto.