As civilised society collapses around us in a dizzying slide down into some kind of primaeval swamp, taking with it all the markers that once kept it on track, there remain a few fundamental hooks or toe-holds that may save us.
It seems impossible that 2022 could degenerate so rapidly into chaos, worse than that which launched us into the Delta in 2021. How on earth could it happen, other than by design, and with ingenious manipulation of media and minds? But more is necessary than merely the misleading presentation of data and the pushing of partial and twisted science to support it; the actors themselves must come to believe their own lies to maintain this collective self-hypnosis and mass delusion. Consider this: Suppose that by accident a Biosecure lab - in Australia say - had allowed a genetically engineered virus to escape containment and infect some civilian workers from the nearby community. How might the government security services - those who were well aware of the kind of dangerous research on bio-weapons being carried out there - react to this extremely alarming incident? In fact we already have a precedent for this in the escape of what appeared to be the SARS-CoV-2 virus from Fort Detrick in late June 2019, when a number of old folk in a nearby retirement village became sick from a virulent pneumonia and some died. The local media were quickly onto it, as such sickness was uncommon in mid-summer, so forensic specialists from the CDC were called in to take samples and attempt to identify the causal agent - or at least that was what concerned locals imagined they would be doing. A few days later the CDC declared that their tests for a variety of known organisms had turned up negative and they couldn't identify the virus involved. In the light of what we know now on the ability of the PCR test to detect the slightest trace of a specific virus, the CDC's failure is simply not plausible. Rather it confirmed later suspicions that what they found was the reason that Fort Detrick was closed down shortly afterwards, allegedly because of a failure in some water treatment system. The point of this of course is that it illustrates what is the normal reaction of governments to any accident involving secret research and materials - a cover-up. Depending on the seriousness of the leak, both in the danger it might pose to the public and the political problems from admitting to doing secret research on such illegal and immoral weapons, the cover-up may be more or less involved, and admissions of the dangers only coming following injuries or deaths that cannot be hidden or explained. And beyond the cover-up is the false flag, with the fatalities used as ammunition against the - phantom - enemy. Meanwhile it is hard or impossible to think of examples where governments have come straight out and admitted to such leaks - for instance of toxic chemicals or radioactive isotopes - even when the activity is not secret. Rather it is commonly a state's enemies that make the accusations of a cover-up, while pretending that they themselves would never do such a thing. The example that springs to mind here is Chernobyl, where there was an extreme contrast between the accusers in Western Europe, claiming that thousands would die from the fall-out, and authorities in the collapsing Soviet state who played it down. The true extent of the leak and the damage remains controversial 35 years later. Translating this into the management of the "novel Coronavirus" leak, one is immediately struck by the contrasting approach of our governments. As the Soviet Union was accused of trying to conceal the extent of radiation leaking from the melted down Chernobyl reactor, so China was accused of trying to hide the first apparent cases of SARS-2 - with the underlying assumption that Chinese authorities knew weeks earlier that the "Wuhan Virus" had somehow escaped from their research lab. By then failing to notify foreign governments promptly China was blamed for the international spread of the virus. To a sceptical observer, these accusations were unconvincing, particularly when the "leaked" story from a doctor reporting the secret sickness was broadcast across Western media and by human rights organisations. It happens every time. And the true story was quite different, incriminating the US and its close allies not just in doing the secret and dangerous research but in setting up Wuhan to take the rap for the "leak", concocting a story about the virus origins in a local market when it appears to have arrived there with the US team for the military games in October. In fact the Chinese response to the escaped virus was pretty much what might have been expected as a bona fide response to a dangerous and unplanned disaster. Not only did China start research on treatments to prevent serious illness, as well as distributing the full genetic sequence of the novel virus around the world, but it immediately introduced the most draconian measures to stop the viral infection spreading, such that the virus was eliminated, at least until further infections from abroad. The vaccines China developed rapidly were also "traditional" and sufficiently effective for this virus, including against later variants, and have been distributed widely around the world to grateful non-Western governments. By contrast the West's vaccine response appears to have been tailored to suit the profits of big pharmaceuticals and their affiliates, taking maximum advantage of public fears and ignorance to push their dodgy drugs onto the market. And the perverse response to the vaccines' failing efficacy demonstrates their continuing duplicity and bad faith. They are now doing all in their power to disguise the growing realisation that the Virus may be on life support, as its most innocuous variant spreads herd immunity around the world and makes further vaccination irrelevant and unnecessary, as well as potentially more dangerous than simply catching the thing and feeling a little bit sick for a day or two. And it is into this schizophrenic circus that mothers are leading their young children, to be stuck with some toxic cocktail that could cripple them for life without offering a benefit of any kind. While serious and highly knowledgeable independent scientists regard this with absolute horror for very good reason, there must surely be some in the centres of control who experience a frisson of delight to watch as every future client is delivered their first dose. But in the centre is the doctor, who remains morally responsible for his actions even if they have been indemnified by the government. He or she must know that injecting these novel "vaccines" is taking a risk with the patients health that is greater than the risk they face from contracting COVID - something only more evident with the milder Omicron strain, which has barely yet been shown to actually kill anyone. They must know that myocarditis is a serious and dangerous condition with life-long effects, and that exposing health young children to this risk cannot be justified other than in the face of a greater risk from infection. What doctor could look straight in the eye of a mother and tell her that the barely tested drug they are about to administer is both "safe and effective", while knowing it is neither? If her child suffers injury to heart or other organs - or develops some unusual developmental fault or disability, will she be happy to be told "I just did what they paid me to do"? But there is worse than this, and it is one of those fundamental "hooks" to stop the slide. On a number of occasions recently I've heard it said that "if your child has tested positive for COVID, you should wait until the infection has cleared before having them vaccinated." It is impossible to overstate the insanity in this message, just as it is impossible to think of any circumstance where a person infected with a disease merits subsequent vaccination against it. If the infection fails to produce a robust immune response, then vaccination will not do so either, while even the best vaccine will not produce a superior or more lasting immunity than that produced in response to infection. In most cases in the past of course, vaccines were only deemed necessary against diseases known to be fatal or with serious consequences - such as smallpox, polio and measles - where gaining immunity from infection was a bad option. (except for childhood infection with measles) By contrast the drive to vaccinate everyone against this virus breaks all those rules. Not only is infection with the SARS-2 virus not serious for the majority of people, with many not even showing signs of infection, the body's natural response seems to provide good and long-lasting immunity. The currently available vaccines however, but particularly the mRNA drugs being promoted so strongly, cannot replicate this natural immunity in either longevity or scope. Under these circumstances the imposition of mandates of any kind cannot be justified, nor understood except in the context of the defining agenda and the narrative that enables it. So there are two simple and related questions for the health authorities who would try to brow beat us into submission; why do you recommend or even allow children who have had a COVID infection to be given an mRNA injection? - and why do you not advise adults who have recovered from the illness or simply tested positive to it, that they no longer need vaccination nor to take any precautionary measures - such as wearing a mask or distancing themselves from others? Sadly - but criminally - there are tens of millions of people around the world who have been vaccinated despite having naturally acquired immunity, and tens of millions more "unvaccinated" who have nothing to fear from further exposure to the Virus and its various strains, nor present any risk to others because of their choice. Keeping these millions in ignorance of their true state of health is perhaps the greatest crime and the most closely guarded secret of the whole wretched fabrication. Exposing it must be our highest and most urgent priority. DM 11.01. 2022