I would agree completely, on your points regarding the politicisation of these events, the failings it exposed in the decades long policy of crippling the NHS and ignoring health professionals in favour of ludicrously remunerated “consultants”, & most all of the other wider issues you refer to in regards to the skewed political & corporate landscape that has played such a part in our collective misery.
“But we need to separate facts and truths from how these are used by rulers and manipulated. The problem is now so serious that it is difficult for individuals to recognize these facts as absolute truths but to question everything.”
Yes, there are those who feel cast adrift in their inability to trust those who we would hope were competent & honest in the administration of the state. Just as there are those who feel securely anchored in their inability to conceive of the idea that those people charged with the administration of the state may be incompetent and/or dishonest.
In both instances, “question everything” is probably preferable to believe/disbelieve everything. But that would be in an ideal & unrealistic world. In our day to day lives, we’re kind of stuck with having to trust in those who know a bit more than ourselves, and “trust” is the key.
I get the impression that much of the maligning of people who are squarely questioning the narrative as it is portrayed, rests on the idea that they are blithely & ignorantly basing their objections on Facebook memes and conspiratorial propaganda, that they get labelled & dismissed under the catch all term “anti vaxxer”.
But much of the dissent stems from consideration of information presented as “facts and truth” by a whole host of knowledgeable & qualified professionals who are just as plausible as those paraded by the MS media & establishment.
In fact, their apparent lack of ‘conflict of interest’ lends them a degree more credibility due to the well practiced self interest evident in establishment circles. To discount dissent as simply ignorant & poorly informed reactionary bloody mindedness fails to do justice to the honestly & quite legitimately informed concerns.
I’m not saying that you yourself are discounting that dissent, just that that seems to be a pervasive theme in public discourse. As it also seems to be a theme on the other side of the conversation as opinion has become polarised.
Saying all that, I can think of no solution other than letting people decide for themselves. And that’s where the sticking point seems to lie.
“….there is no conspiracy in planning such an event (Event 201).”
It doesn’t strike me as conspiratorial either, convenient or curiously coincidental at best. But that might be my cognitive dissonance at being unable to imagine that this horrific sh!tshow was deliberately engineered as a pre-emptive effort to impose a whole rash of authoritarian controls on the world :-)))) But I honestly cannot conceive of that being the case.
I know that a few hundreds of thousands or a few millions of dead Arabs, a few tens of thousands of dead austerity poor, a few hundreds of thousands of starving Yemenis or sanctioned Iraqi toddlers, or the millions of ‘others’ if you want to go back further than 30 years, I know these “dead” don’t cause our policy makers any sleepless nights.
And I know that “overpopulation” and eugenicist sentiments aren’t unheard of amongst the great & the good.
But even with all that, I still can’t imagine that this COVID crisis was deliberately manufactured.
However, in regards to Event 201 being part of some nefarious pre-emptive effort, I wouldn’t say definitively that it was or it wasn’t, it simply falls into the category of “I’ll never know, one way or another,” so I’m not inclined to spend any mental energy wondering.
I don’t know precisely what “theories” abound on the subject as those aren’t conversations I am privy to nor do I seek them out. However, I can perhaps sympathise with those who would latch on to this planning exercise. Norad’s Vigilant Guardian on 9/11 & Visor Consultants’ simulation drill on 7/7 have attracted a lot of attention & intrigue over the years, along with the “first you simulate, then you go live” concept. So I’m not surprised that Event 201 has attracted such speculation.
As an aside, I don’t think Gates did anyone any favours when he appeared on BBC Breakfast (in April 2020, I think) & indirectly suggested that the event hadn’t even occurred, BMGF having been involved in the Event itself:
“…We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”
But like I say, I don’t put much stock in the outright conspiracy idea, although as Vidal succinctly put it, I’m not averse to ‘analysing’ events which are bundled up in conspiracies. As such, I do find Event 201 interesting, because of what it can reveal about the decision making once the ‘pandemic’ had been categorised as such.
The only thing I’ve been particularly drawn to was the exercise where participants ‘gamed’ narrative management during a pandemic, in relation to MS media & tech (Event 201 Pandemic Exercise Segment 4-Communications) and how that later played out in 2020.
Admittedly, I did find it ‘spooky’ that the participants had been involved in a simulation based on a hypothetical virus that they apparently identified using the acronym “nCoV-2019”. With the WHO subsequently adopting the acronym “2019-nCoV” in January and how that has come to dominate our lives, I’m sure that even the participants themselves found it “peculiar”, to use Peter Power’s 2005 terminology.
Regardless of what COVID is or isn’t, my primary concern is that it has been mismanaged, misrepresented & exploited by individuals, corporations & institutions whose motives I am very sceptical of.
I am very much not convinced by the solutions they propose or the justifications they give, not out of bloody mindedness or a selfish sense of my own personal integrity, but out of a fear of the very real & assorted horrors that may, & in some instances most definitely will, be unleashed.
You mentioned in an earlier post that “experimental gene therapy vaccine, sounds very much like…antivaccine teachings.”
I hadn’t realised that was a contentious term, but I’ve just googled around and it seems the various ministries of truth/fact checkers seem to have taken exception to it too, so I see where you’re coming from.
But, in my defence:
YouTube (4m 4s) – American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy: mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19
The American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:
“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.
These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”
[ASGCT.org November 17, 2020]
“Moderna … describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer … make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,”
[David Martin Ph.D. + US SEC Moderna June 30, 2020]
I guess as new technologies develop & these tools/products need to conform to indemnity, regulation & marketing requirements, then definitions can change. But, as they stand, I don’t think they qualify as ‘vaccines’ under the medical definition, although ‘branding’ is obviously another field.
Vaccine, medical definition:
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
[CDC.gov Immunizations: The Basics, Definition of Terms]
mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they do not fullfil the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
Neither do they inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fullfil the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
Dr Tal Zaks (chief medical officer at Moderna Inc) was a bit more candid in his 2017 TED talk (The disease-eradicating potential of gene editing) when this wasn’t such a “hot” issue & mandatory compliance wasn’t on the cards.
I also understood that the FDA had only granted the jabs Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) and that they will remain in trials through 2023, hence the reference to “experimental”. “Permitted” for emergency use rather than “Approved” in the usual sense of the word is obviously not a distinction the marketing department likes to draw attention to.
I guess it will get ‘less’ experimental as time goes on. If Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s comments on NBC back in February are any indication, folk will have plenty of time to get used to regular jabbing:
“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine…It’s going to be the same with Covid. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for Covid to be protected.”
Of course, that’s assuming their product doesn’t turn out to be another Protonix, Prempro, Chantix, Depo-Testosterone, etc. etc. oh! no matter, I guess they’re indemnified for that now.
If they manage to keep the gravy train rolling, it will be interesting to see how they handle pricing in light of the Epipen rip off & the few billion $$$ in criminal fines they’ve racked up since the turn of the century.
………I’m loathe to add this last link because I did not come across it myself & have not looked into it. Worse still, I came across it chatting to an Aussie over breakfast who showed me it on his phone. So if anything has the potential to be ‘conspiracy’ claptrap, then this will be it. But the claims and the supposed CV of the man making them would be, if both those things checked out, something worth sharing.
I did google the name briefly & the Google algorithms & various ministries of truth (for whatever they’re worth) did seem to throw up a lot of dismissive stuff.
So, massive caveat, I only came across it a few days ago, from a completely unknown source & I haven’t made any efforts to verify it’s authenticity or plausibility:
YouTube (11m 15s) – Del Bigtree (The Highwire): mRNA Jab – Watch Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM
(additional) warning: the interview is introduced by quite an excitable presenter, or perhaps just very Ameri……… sorry