What fallacies are involved in the conclusions drawn about the pandemic?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

What is your claim here? That COVID-19 is not a "pandemic"? If that is the case, what definition of "pandemic" are you using? And further, do you disagree with the generally accepted figure that about 6.5 million people globally have died from COVID since Spring of 2020? If so, what do you believe is the actual death toll?

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Bo, There is a small but not completely insignificant percentage of people who don't accept the claim from the authorities that there is an illness, covid, distinct from other respiratory illnesses or the claim that a virus, sars-cov-2, has been proven to exist. This means we don't believe in any kind of pandemic regardless of how it is defined. We believe any mortality or illness assigned to covid is false assignation. The disbelievers include a number of medical doctors, biochemists, chemists and others, they are people who've questioned the scientists directly who've produced papers claiming isolation of the virus and some of these disbelieving doctors and scientists have questioned in fact many historical papers on the subject of viruses generally.

I'll give one example where at first glance mortality statistics might suggest a novel illness but on closer examination suggest something far more sinister.

While the overall excess mortality spike in Europe in April 2020 might lead us to suspect the presence of a novel illness, when we break the figures down by country (set the end date marker to 2020-25) we see there is no excess spike (that is the spike is no greater at that time of year compared to previous years) in Portugal and Germany, two countries that didn’t implement either of the aggressive drug trials, the Oxford Recovery and the WHO Solidarity trial. Very little publicity of the problems with these trials was covered by the media but France-Soir published this article, Oxford, Recovery et Solidarity: Overdosage in two clinical trials with acts considered criminal?

The above point on excess mortality is Point 10 of 13 points comprising irrefutable facts that show that the pandemic is a fraud.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/publish/post/72081822

This is an example of an external peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 which reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level. You don't see any of this kind of criticism in mainstream scientific journals and the media, it's all suppressed.
https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=eedca1b3-0bcd-4572-b831-c51d1b977e2f

  

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

There is a small but not completely insignificant percentage of people who don't accept the claim from the authorities that there is an illness, covid, distinct from other respiratory illnesses or the claim that a virus, sars-cov-2, has been proven to exist. 

I don't have the medical expertise to know how a respiratory illness is identified, distinct from others. Frankly, I don't care. This sounds like a semantics argument similar to asking how many grains of sand make a "heap", but more importantly, a red herring from issues of importance such as a disease/illness that is killing people above and beyond the normal seasonal illnesses and what can do to minimize the risk of illness and death.

I think I can pick out one claim here you are making we can focus on: that the number of deaths per year is roughly the same in 2020 than in other years. Is this accurate? If not, please just make a simple claim that we can discuss.

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Bo, My claim is rather that an excess spike in mortality in Europe in April 2020 is explained by something other than covid, namely aggressive drug trials because the excess spike doesn't occur in the two countries that didn't conduct these trials. So not saying mortality is roughly the same necessarily but that we can explain an excess in mortality by something other than covid. Excess in mortality would never be a good metric of itself to explain a phenomenon because you need to look at all possible causes for it.
  

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

My claim is rather that an excess spike in mortality in Europe in April 2020 is explained by something other than covid,

This is uninteresting and unremarkable. By April 2020, COVID wasn't nearly as serious a problem and it is likely that the death count by then was high at all. So if you are saying the excess deaths, in Europe, in April 2020 were probably mostly due to something other than COVID, then whatever. I don't think this is what you are claiming however, or at least, it is a very minor and weak claim that us largely unfalisfiable. I have a feeling what you believe is far different than what you are willing to clearly state and claim.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Bo, I very much wish to state what I believe which is there is no illness, covid, there is no novel virus and there is no pandemic.

In relation to April 2020 I should clarify that my point is not to state that the excess mortality was definitely caused by aggressive drug trials but more to put forward a likely alternative. As the debunker of a claim there is less onus on me right? The onus is more on those making the initial claim that there's a covid pandemic and in support of this claim they're pointing to excess mortality and that is indeed what they were doing for Europe April 2020.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_-_statistics#Excess_mortality_in_the_EU_between_January_2020_and_July_2022

 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

Bo, I very much wish to state what I believe which is there is no illness, covid, there is no novel virus and there is no pandemic.

Sorry, but your assertions are not even worth entertaining. At least not for me or anyone who values their time.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Not assertions, evidence-backed claims, Bo. I've put a link to my case of 13 points here:
What is exposed when the second fundamental rule of critical thinking is applied to covid

So far we've discussed one point which shows that where we see excess mortality from which we might infer a new illness is the cause we can see a more likely cause evidenced by the lack of excess mortality in two countries who didn't implement aggressive drug trials. The main point is that we need to be careful in ascribing cause to excess mortality - it might seem there's one cause when there's really another.

This means that you cannot argue for excess mortality to support the case there is a pandemic without clear evidence that the pandemic illness is the cause of the excess mortality, you need to rely on other data which should exist in the case of a real pandemic against which drastic measures need to be taken, it should be able to be proven without excess mortality figures.

I put forward my two rules for critical thinking:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
2. Confine analysis to the most relevant and unarguable-with data in the first instance

I've received no feedback from anyone on my two rules. What do you think of those rules and what do you think are the fundamental rules of critical thinking that you follow, Bo?

If we follow Rule 2, excess mortality (without clear evidence of its cause) cannot be used as evidence supporting the pandemic.

Also, if we follow Rule 2 we cannot use covid "cases" as being particularly meaningful because these are determined by a test whose fitness for purpose has been challenged and, in fact, the authorities themselves say there is no gold standard test for covid and the label on the test indicates it is not a "diagnostic test", however, a case is not determined by a clinical diagnosis but by the positive result of the test.

It wouldn't make the slightest difference what we thrashed out here in argument. If, until now, you believe in the pandemic and have never thought about the possibility that there isn't one let alone no novel virus then there would be no way you would accept that there isn't in an argument online, the cognitive dissonance would be too great.

However, if your rules of critical thinking were the same as mine what you would definitely do is:
--- look at my case for no novel virus/no pandemic and come back to me on where you think it fails assuming you find something
--- consider what unarguable evidence exists that says there's a pandemic

But if you genuinely seek to challenge your belief it will of course take time to change it although you might get reasonably quickly to the point where you see there's a genuine challenge there.

What I put forward as the absolutely clear indicator there is no pandemic is a simple common sense indicator:
If there really were a pandemic we would have known about it other than media and government telling us 24/7. In fact, though, we would have had absolutely no clue there was a pandemic other than being told 24/7.

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

When I click on the link, its trying to argue that the moon landings are fake, and that 911 was an inside job. So, the pandemic doesn't exist, and the moon landings were faked. Sounds like you need to look up this fallacy conspiracy theory 

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Hi Jason, Can you point to where you think I say the moon landings didn't happen?

Jason Mathias writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

You didn't.... I just read the title and made a quick judgment. Sorry. 

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Thanks for acknowledging that Jason.

Petra Liverani writes:

Dr Richard,

What I've done is put forward 13 unarguable facts that support if not favour the hypothesis that the pandemic is a fabrication and I make the contention that no unarguable fact can be put forward to say it's real. I'm not sure how you find that rambling. Rather than make vague criticisms why not simply prove me wrong by putting forward an unarguable fact that favours its reality over fakery?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

I suspect what you consider as a "fact" does not rise to that level in my view.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

Let's just look at the first of your "unarguable facts that support if not favor the hypothesis that the pandemic is a fabrication. I think this is key to critical thinking and I am hoping you will see how you are completely bypassing critical thinking here in favor of promoting a conspiracy.

1. There were a significant number of pandemic-themed events and film/TV productions leading up to the alleged pandemic that are overly coincidental. A number of examples are listed below.

Let's put aside that one of the symptoms of conspiratorial thinking is the inability to accept coincidences. The reason we are putting this aside, as I will show, as there isn't even any coincidences here. You named nine exercises, tv shows, and movies since 2010 related to pandemics. Nine. That is less than one per year. If the data were on your side, you wouldn't have listed "some examples," you would have compared your chosen time period (2010-2020) to previous time periods and provided accurate numbers demonstrating your point.

Movies about outbreaks and pandemics have been made regularly since the invention of movies. For a reference, see 33+ Pandemic/Epidemic Movies: The Best Virus Outbreak Films and make note of their dates:  https://creepycatalog.com/pandemic-movies-best-virus-outbreak-films/

Notice how "leading up to" can be defined any way you like to support your point. Aren't movies made in 1957 about outbreaks also "leading up" to this?

You have completely ignored your own stated Rule #1 : Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong. If you were truly interested in a rational analysis, you would do what I did that took minutes: look up other pandemic-themed movies, shows, and events and see if there is a statistically significant difference. For example, in the decade before the one you chose "leading up" to COVID, 2000-2010, there were 13 movies alone just on that link I provided, which was not inclusive. This doesn't even count TV shows or exercises.

Let's assume that you were right and in the decade leading up to COVID, there were a disproportional number of movies and TV shows. Good critical thinking would require that we come up with as many possible reasons for this and consider the plausibility of each. I honestly don't even know what you are suggesting because, like most conspiracy theorists, you simply list what appears to be an unusual fact then let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks. Are you suggesting that all these film writers, directors, producers, investors, etc. were contacted by the people planning the pandemic and told them to make these movies? And they all remain silent and kept this secret? Or perhaps the people planning the pandemic were watching too many movies and TV and got this nefarious idea of starting a fake pandemic? If the latter, why not fake an alien invasion since that is a more popular than ever subject in fiction? Now compare those outrageous and improbable hypotheses with:

1. The number of movies released each year (and TV shows) have been increasing significantly every year. It reasons that pandemic films will increase by that same amount, by chance alone.
2. Movies are often a response to world events. The 2009 H1N1 pandemic renewed the public's interest in pandemics and Hollywood responded by making movies and shows that capture people's interest.

You are not engaged in critical thinking no matter how many times you write that you are. This is just your first and "unarguable fact" completely demolished by actual critical thinking. I hope you will use this response as a challenge... a challenge to yourself to revisit your other 12 "unarguable facts" and see where you went wrong.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thanks, Bo, for engaging, you're helping me refine my argument.

I want to make the point abundantly clear that it is not I alone stating that the covid pandemic is not real - some like me believe absolutely nothing of it - no virus, no nothing while others believe there is a virus or illness but it doesn't require any particular measures. Included in those who believe nothing of it are doctors and scientists far better qualified than either you or I in the relevant areas of medicine, chemistry, biochemistry and microbiology. Equally, of course there are many more just as qualified who go along with what has been put forward to show the existence of the virus, the illness and a pandemic requiring massive measures. In this situation I think it's fair to say we're obliged to look at both sides of the argument. You haven't done that though, Bo. 

I give the example of Dr Saeed Qureshi, a chemist, who calls out isolation of the virus as nonsense. I make the point that it is not microbiologists who do the work of isolation but chemists. On his LinkedIn page you will see he has received a number of awards including, Award for Excellence in Research (Biomolecular), Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary. This is a podcast interview with him if you're interested.

I also put forward two cases where fact-checkers have come out against those who argue against the purported science behind the pandemic but who didn't respond to the response to their alleged debunking. I always follow the debunking trail as far as I can because obviously sometimes the science can be a bit arcane but when someone doesn't respond to a response to their argument that's telling and depending on the content even as laypeople we can often work out who has the better argument.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/debunking-the-debunkers-pcr-tests-scientifically-meaningless

"That is less than one per year."
Framing the data as an average distorts the picture. Yes, as you show we can go back in time and find pandemic-related events, reducing the average further. The thing is if this pandemic is a hoax it will definitely not be their first BBQ and they like to keep fearful notions going because fear is a great way of controlling people. I like to eliminate possibility of argument as much as I can so what I'll do is edit my article and put items from 2016 starting with the film Pandemic and present House-Cat Flu (2010) as a differently-themed artefact because this episode is not about a "genuine" pandemic as such but rather a "phoney-baloney crisis" whose orchestration we see discussed by a "secret enclave of America's media empires" as the episode opens. 

So if we just use events from 2016 while identifying the theme of House-Cat Flu from 2010 as a "phoney-baloney crisis" orchestrated by a "secret enclave of media empires" I think you'd have to agree they do seem rather concentrated in the four years before the pandemic and when we consider that one exercise the very year before is about an outbreak in China that multiplies coincidence. 

"Are you suggesting that all these film writers, directors, producers, investors, etc. were contacted by the people planning the pandemic and told them to make these movies?"

I have no idea how it all works, Bo, and I have to say I'm as mystified as you, however, another rule of critical thinking I believe is to follow the immortal words of the fictional detective:

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

What you have done here Bo is simply immediately reached to find a way to defend your belief, that is, you distorted the appearance of a situation by presenting an average figure, you haven't properly engaged with my 13-point article in any shape or form. If you were serious about "aiming to prove your hypothesis wrong" as I do rather than simply focus on the first point to find a way to argue against it you would have looked at all the points and picked more than one at least to argue against.

But happy to stick with the first point if you like. Would you still argue against my coincidence argument if we limit the "lead up" period from the 2016 film, Pandemic, that includes an exercise involving an outbreak in China where the supposedly "real" pandemic broke out the very next year and identify the 2010 House-Cat Flu as the differently-themed artefact of "phoney-baloney crisis"? If so, I'm curious to see how you'd do that but the thing is I've made 13 points, the reason being that if there's fault to be found with one there are others to contend with.

I'm also waiting for the one fact you (or anyone) considers unarguable (let's modify it to what you consider an unarguable fact) that favours real pandemic over psyop - just the one fact is all I need because if this is a psyop there simply won't be a single fact that favours real pandemic over psyop, there just won't be one I don't think although who knows? We shall see.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

 I think it's fair to say we're obliged to look at both sides of the argument. You haven't done that though, Bo.

I have seen nothing remotely credible you have presented to motivate me to even entertain this idea. Again, this isn't a debate site; it is about reasoning (specifically fallacies). I engaged because of your poor reasoning demonstrated on your link in the OP to your argument.

I have no idea how it all (why movies are evidence for a fake pandemic) works, Bo, and I have to say I'm as mystified as you, 

I am not the slightest bit mystified. I know exactly how it works. People make movies that people want to see. The fact that Hollywood has been making pandemic films since the invention of the motion picture is not at all mystifying, and if there were a statistically significant increase in these films in the last decade, the scare of the H1N1 pandemic would explain that well.

another rule of critical thinking I believe is to follow the immortal words of the fictional detective: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Only if you learn critical thinking from movies. This is a horrible rule, and not at all suggested in actual critical thinking. Google it.

you haven't properly engaged with my 13-point article in any shape or form.

Again, I am not debating this idea. Just demonstrating how flawed your line of thinking is.

I'm also waiting for the one fact you (or anyone) considers unarguable (let's modify it to what you consider an unarguable fact) 

Again. See above, and you have the burden of proof.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"You have the burden of proof."

The government and media have told us there's a pandemic but I don't see one. I think it's incumbent on them and those who support that narrative to prove it.

Scientists have put forward that a virus has been isolated. This claim has been refuted by doctors and scientists.
They have put forward that there is a test for the virus. The validity of the test is admitted even by the authorities to be supbar - no gold standard, not a diagnostic test ... and yet it is used to determine a "case".
The mortality is all at the far end of the demographics in any case if we accept this novel virus and the numbers in Australia at least are simply laughable.
Nothing adds up to a pandemic, it's very simple.

There is simply no clear evidence of a pandemic and all I'm asking for is a simple fact that you believe is unarguable that favours real pandemic over fake, excess mortality not being one. That is all. One simple fact.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

all I'm asking for is a simple fact that you believe is unarguable that favours real pandemic over fake, excess mortality not being one. That is all. One simple fact. 

The "one unarguable fact" is a debate gambit, not a tool of critical thinking. Let me demonstrate. I am assuming you don't believe in a flat earth. Present "one simple unarguable fact" that the earth is not flat to the flat earth community. This should be easy as the spherical earth is one of the most widely accepted facts. What you will find is that the conspiracy theorists won't accept any fact you present them, because, as the fallacy states, every fact (e.g., photos from NASA) are just further evidence of the conspiracy, since "they" are in on the conspiracy. See any similarities? You are engaged in debate, not critical thinking.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I'll remove reference to films and I'll combine points one and two. My combined point now reads.

1. In the two years prior to the pandemic the following exercises were conducted: Pandemic tabletop exercises, Event 201 (Oct 2019) and Clade X (2018); joint exercise by US agencies to respond to a severe pandemic of influenza originating in China, Crimson Contagion (2019).

We were told that the covid 19 pandemic is an exercise: in a press conference on March 20, 2020, Mike Pompeo says: “We’re in a live exercise here,” after which Donald Trump says quietly and impassively, “You should have let us … you should have let us know.” How does Pompeo’s statement and Trump’s response make sense for a real pandemic? We were told on the World Economic Forum website, Lockdown is the world's biggest psychological experiment ...

You still haven't presented an unarguable fact that favours real pandemic over fake. Hospital scenes don't prove anything.

This is what favours fake over real:
1. The virus has been shown not to have been isolated using the correct scientific methods.
2. The test is not fit for purpose.
3. The alleged illness does not have a distinctive set of symptoms.
4. There are clear signs of fakery, for example, in hospital patients.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Actually, Bo, your argument is really helping me tighten my claim for coincidence:

Just found:

Outbreak (2019), Russian film.
To The Lake, Russian TV series (2019) about a deadly virus - released Netflix Oct 2020)
The Rain (2018), Scandinavian TV series set six years after a rain-borne virus has wiped out most of Scandinavia's population - the first episode is called, Stay Inside.
III-Final-Contagium (2019), German-Italian film about a viral pandemic.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

Adding more movies does nothing for your point. This is like me telling you that because I have ants in my house, you have an STD. When you tell me how flawed this thinking is, I respond with "I just found more ants in my kitchen, so now my argument is even stronger."

No.

Petra Liverani writes:

Vagueness again. What's the value?

Jason Mathias writes:

"I put the challenge to you: if you believe in the pandemic simply provide one unarguable fact that favours real pandemic"

Definition of pandemic:

pan·dem·ic
/panˈdemik/
 Learn to pronounce
 
adjective
 
(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world.

 

People were in fact getting sick with a disease in every country around the world. Therefore, there was a pandemic. 

 

It really is this simple. 

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Jason Mathias ]

No one is denying sickness. People get sick in all countries around the world all the time and there's a seasonal flu pandemic every year. What says the sickness was the illness, covid, and not cold, flu, whatever other respiratory illness?

Jason Mathias writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

Seasonal flu is a strand thats around each season, and it mutates from season to season to evade any kind of permeant immunity. So our immune systems are use to it therefore its not as deadly. Its anticipated, predicable and doesn't sneak up on us.

A pandemic flu is a novel strand that hasn't been circulating before for a very long time if ever. Therefore, the pandemic is more alien to our immune system and makes us sicker than the seasonal flu.

Many more people died in Covid-19 than in seasonal flu for example. Like 15x more, plus it turned peoples lungs into glass. Scientists sequenced the viruses DNA and found that it was novel and named it SARS COV 2. Samples were constantly taken from sick people and the virus DNA was sequenced to diagnose it as thats how they could tell which variant. Seasonal flues doesn't have long covid effects and many more demonstrable differences. 

Plus, Covid was a huge problem in almost every single country on the entire planet. Therefore, it would have to be a massive conspiracy psych op that would have to have had almost impossible cooperation standards. 

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Jason Mathias ]

Jason,

What I'm asking for is an unarguable fact that favours real pandemic over psyop.

"Many more people died in Covid-19 than in seasonal flu for example."
This claim is not an unarguable fact. What statistics show is that alleged covid mortality predominantly occurs in people in older demographics suffering co-morbidities so the question arises as to what these people really died from. It is almost comical to look at the demographics and low number generally of covid mortality in Australia in 2020.  I know people who know people who've died who were suffering from a terminal illness where covid was put on their death certificate.

Ground glass opacities isn't something unique to patients who've tested positive for covid.

The alleged genome sequence is a computer fabrication based on strands of biological material from here there and everywhere, it is not based on a single biological entity. Sequencing is not assembling. You don't assemble a genome sequence, sequencing is breaking off the parts of a single biological entity.
https://drsambailey.com/the-covid-19-fraud-war-on-humanity/

What needs to be understood about conspiracies is that many people who really should know better aren't necessarily part of the conspiracy per se, they're not "in on it", they just go along to get along which is essentially what most people do - we go along to get along. In any case, what we must always do is judge by the evidence otherwise we fall into argument from incredulity/hypothesis contrary to fact.

Upton Sinclair's famous words apply MASSIVELY.

It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

There is no such thing as an "unarguable fact" so you are creating an impossible standard.

People argue over the facts that the universe is billions of years old, evolution is real, Biden won the 2020 US Presidential election, and that the earth is NOT flat. The Internet allows people with no background in the areas they argue to go down rabbit holes of misinformation and disinformation, resulting in otherwise reasonable people coming to horribly wrong conclusions.

Think about what you are suggesting... there is a global conspiracy where hundreds of countries are all involved "pretending" there is a virus that is killing people above and beyond (by 6 million) normal death rates. Rivals China and US both pretended to shut down their economies costing them trillions. Photos from all over the world of hospitals to capacity of people on ventilators - all photoshopped? And what about the Spanish Flu of 1920s? Was this a conspiracy as well? Why is a pandemic then okay but not now? Again, there is only one term for what you are proposing... batshit crazy. You are smarter than this... snap out of it.

Millions of people are dead above on and beyond expected mortality rates. This is shown by 194 countries all contributing data to the WHO. All 194 countries in the conspiracy and submitting fraudulent data?

https://www.who.int/data/stories/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-january-2020-december-2021

Please remind yourself of the fallacy of the conspiracy theory .

There is no "unarguable fact," especially for those brainwashed by conspiracies. If someone posts facts and data, you will just argue that it is part of the conspiracy. You somehow fell down this rabbit hole, you can get yourself out.

[I know I said I am not getting involved, but this is important for all those who might be reading this going down a similar path. I will do my best to keep out of it from this point on.]

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"There is no such thing as an "unarguable fact" so you are creating an impossible standard."

There are facts that there is virtually no or absolutely no disagreement with. No one would disagree that there were a number of pandemic-themed events and artefacts produced in the years prior to 2020. That's a clear fact. You did disagree with my claim that this represented too much of a coincidence however I've altered my point to eliminate one item earlier than 2016 altogether and re-categorized another earlier item and I've also added four more. This is what it looks like now.

1. There were a significant number of pandemic-themed events and film/TV productions in the four years leading up to the alleged pandemic that are overly coincidental. A number of examples are listed below:

Exercises: Pandemic tabletop exercises, Event 201 (Oct 2019) and Clade X (2018); joint exercise by US agencies to respond to a severe pandemic of influenza originating in China, Crimson Contagion (2019).

Television: Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak (Jan 22, 2020), Netflix docuseries; To The Lake (2019) - Russian TV series about a deadly virus, released Netflix Oct 2020; Contagion: The BBC Four Pandemic (2018); The Rain (2018), Scandinavian TV series set six years after a rain-borne virus has wiped out most of Scandinavia's population - first episode, Stay Inside.

Films: Patient Zero (2019); Outbreak (2019), Russian film; III-Final-Contagium (2019), German-Italian film; Pandemic (2016)

The episode of The Simpsons, House Cat Flu (2010), opens with a a "secret enclave of media empires" planning their orchestration of a "phoney-baloney crisis".

I'd have to agree that to say something is too much of a coincidence falls more into the area of opinion than fact but I think as my point stands now it would be difficult to argue against "strange coincidence", even if we allow it's not a completely unarguable fact. While you will find pandemic-themed events prior to 2016 I'd imagine it's difficult to find such a concentration and to find one event, in particular, which has very strong similarities to the actual event the following year - and if you did find such an event then we'd have to question the event in the following year because there is no way that this fake pandemic is their first BBQ.

As I say in another comment please don't treat my argument as only coming from me, there are people much better qualified than either of us arguing the exact same thing. When there are eminently qualified people from a number of relevant disciplines arguing for something their argument needs consideration.

What needs to be understood, Bo, is that people produce fraudulent data without realising it, for example, they are propagandised into believing that a test that is unfit-for-purpose is valid.

Essentially, your argument is Argument from Incredulity.

Please present what you regard as an unarguable fact, let's just go with a fact you regard as unarguable.

You put a link to data on excess deaths but I've already pointed out a situation where excess deaths are much more easily explained by something other than a novel illness. If you wish to argue that excess deaths statistics prove the existence of covid you'd have to provide evidence that what explains those statistics definitely is covid and doesn't have another explanation.

What I've done that you have not, Bo, is looked at the argument on both sides, you simply haven't done that at all, it seems until now you weren't even aware of it. Have you heard of Dr Sam Bailey and her husband, Dr Mark Bailey, Tom Cowan, MD, Andrew Kaufman, MD, David Rasnick, PhD? You are completely unfamiliar with the argument against the mainstream narrative and you need to look at it not knee-jerk with an argument that distorts a situation by reducing it to an average figure and present excess mortality statistics which I've already shown cannot be used to infer a cause from without clear evidence.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

1. There were a significant number of pandemic-themed events and film/TV productions in the four years leading up to the alleged pandemic that are overly coincidental.

This is still not even close to an "unarguable fact." As I demonstrated in a previous comment, these are not even "coincidental" let alone "overly coincidental". You simply added more to your list and ignored everything I wrote about how demonstrates poor critical thinking. Specifically,

1. You have not shown that there are more pandemic-related films in the last 4 years than other time periods.
2. You have not shown that you accounted for the increasing production of films in general
3. You have not provided any connection between more pandemic-related films and your theory that the pandemic is fake.
4. You have not even entertained my proposed hypotheses for why there might be more pandemic-related films in the last 4 years (if that were actually the case) and reasoned why your explanation is a better one.

Please present what you regard as an unarguable fact, let's just go with a fact you regard as unarguable. 

You have the burden of proof here. You are the one claiming that there is nobody died from COVID-19. This is like a theist demanding that non-believers prove that God doesn't exist, otherwise they win (and God must exist). This is also like the My Pillow guy offering $1m to anyone who can prove the 2020 election was fair. No evidence or proof will satisfy one who has a fervor for spreading a conspiracy.

 

Have you heard of Dr Sam Bailey and her husband, ...

No no no no no. My reason for the involvement is not to debate this idea; it is to demonstrate that your reasoning process is beyond flawed. All  need to do for this is address your #1 point about "pandemic movies therefore the pandemic is probably fake."

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"There is no such thing as an "unarguable fact" so you are creating an impossible standard."

Answer 2

To my mind the most unarguable fact that favours psyop over real pandemic is point 5 in my article.

5. Without being told by government and media 24/7 there was a pandemic we'd have no clue. From our own experience of illness in others none of us would have noticed a greater number of people suffering respiratory illness around us than normal.

Bo, can you explain to me how that is not an unarguable fact? If no measure had been introduced and there was no mention in the media or by government that there was a pandemic can you explain to me how you'd have known there was one? In Australia, there was a far, far greater case number of the flu in 2019 than there was of the first 12 months of the alleged covid and yet I had no clue that there was such a large number. A friend got a bad case of the flu for the first time in her life (ironically a few months after she'd got the flu shot for the very first time in her life) and she told me of a colleague's relatively young mother who'd died from the flu, however, I had no idea that the case number was over 300,000. 300,000 is actually only 1.2% of our 25 million population so I guess not such a large number percentage-wise, however, still far greater than the case number of the alleged covid which is reported as "just over 30,000" by April/May 2021 - slightly more than a year's worth of covid cases!
https://www.guild.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/84229/Influenza-Report-30-October-2019.pdf

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/the-first-year-of-covid-19-in-australia/summary

According to the mortality statistics covid is greater percentage wise than the flu but number wise not significantly and, of course, when we look at the demographics of the mortality statistics - they're a joke - they seriously make me laugh - not that I think a single statistic represents covid as I think the evidence clearly shows there is no such thing but if we accept the existence of the illness, the mortality figures in Australia are still a complete joke for a "pandemic" where the country needs to be turned upside down.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/causes-death-australia/2020

 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

To my mind the most unarguable fact that favours psyop over real pandemic is point 5 in my article.

You should start with your best evidence then.

5. Without being told by government and media 24/7 there was a pandemic we'd have no clue. From our own experience of illness in others none of us would have noticed a greater number of people suffering respiratory illness around us than normal.

Your best evidence is asking for anecdotal evidence, which is the worst kind of evidence. If I were to seriously entertain your challenge here, I would tell you that since 2020, I watched my best friend's father die of a respiratory disease the doctors called "COVID." I almost lost my accountant to a respiratory disease the doctors called "COVID" when my accountant spent six months in a coma. And I would tell you that my knee surgery was cancelled because my local hospital (Mass General) was overflowing with patients all with respiratory disease the doctors called "COVID." I have experienced nothing like this prior to 2020. But this would all be anecdotal, and by no means is my experience good evidence for the pandemic being real, as would anyone's lack of firsthand experience with the pandemic be evidence that the pandemic was fake.

Bo, can you explain to me how that is not an unarguable fact?

Yes. This "fact" might only be convincing to poor critical thinkers who have not experienced the pandemic first hand. To virtually everyone at least in the US who has, this would be laughable if the pain we suffered weren't so serious. To those who did not experience the effects of COVID firsthand but know how to think critically, they would know that their own experience does not generalize to a global population. I have never experienced murder firsthand, that does not mean all murder is fake.

Again, your line of reasoning is extremely flawed.

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"Your best evidence is asking for anecdotal evidence, which is the worst kind of evidence."

I'd argue that if you're supposed to be in the midst of a pandemic and you have no experience of it then there cannot be a pandemic, it's something that would be experienced by everyone in the area where it is supposed to be - I mean not that each person has to get sick but that they'd somehow be aware of it from sickness in others - otherwise it makes no sense for the term pandemic - if you are not aware of greater illness in others where's the pandemic? Regardless, all we have to do is look at the figures in Australia where we had 300,000 cases of the flu in 2019 and 30,000 the following year for the alleged covid - so even if we accept covid as a genuine illness obviously no pandemic right? Your personal experience is very different from mine so I guess my argument applies in Australia but not necessarily in the US. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

 so I guess my argument applies in Australia but not necessarily in the US.  

So, at best, I hope you can see that what you are really arguing is that in Austrailla, the pandemic was no where near as much of a problem as it was in the rest of the world and how problematic it is to say that because it wasn't obvious in AU (to you) then it didn't happen anywhere.

Please do me a favor and watch some of these videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=inside+hospitals+covid

I understand that YouTube videos don't constitute proof, but maybe you will get a better sense of what we sent through here in the US.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"So, at best, I hope you can see that what you are really arguing is that in Austrailla, the pandemic was no where near as much of a problem ..."

No, at best I can argue there was no pandemic at all in Australia and what completely proves it is that 300,000 cases of the flu were reported in 2019 while only 30,000 cases of covid were reported (not that I accept covid but if we go with that figure) and the mortality was very preponderantly in the very old demographics. Moreover, there was a sudden drop in flu cases as covid appeared so we can infer that people with the flu who also tested positive for covid were regarded as covid cases rather than flu - they're not going to tell people they have the flu and covid now are they? You couldn't have both.

Of course, I argue there was no pandemic anywhere, however, as you experienced what easily could be inferred as a pandemic I shall remove my point 5 because I want my points to apply generally not just to Australia so I will strike my point that people didn't have any experience of a pandemic (I argue that for a pandemic to exist it is not a case of "anecdotal" if you don't experience it I'd argue it isn't happening but as there is disagreement over that notion anyway another good reason to leave it out). In your case, as your experience matched pandemic in the absence of evidence to the contrary your experience is quite compelling. There is, however, evidence to the contrary.

You don't think I've looked at hospital videos? Unfortunately, it's hard to prove things with hospital videos as no one is denying that people in hospital are suffering from respiratory illnesses and symptom-wise there's no distinction from other respiratory illnesses - covid, it's a bit of chameleon, isn't it? It can look like a cold, it can look like flu, it can look like pneumonia. The only way of telling it apart is ... the test! The test reveals all - take the test away no more covid! I gave a quick look to a few videos that popped up, one in which the person interviewed said they'd noticed in the hospital "people weren't getting better". Rather vague, isn't it?

This is an analysis I did of an interview with a woman allegedly in hospital in Japan that has all the signs of fakery - as I say - they always let us know.

There are a number of anomalies to be found in this 10-minute interview conducted by a CBC news anchor with Rebecca Frasure, a Diamond Princess passenger.

• After her diagnosis, contradicting herself, she says, “I never really had any symptoms like cough, like fever when I arrived on Friday at the hospital. Both of those have since resolved.” Later she says she “had a little bit of a cough” but she figured it was just because she’d been outside and on a boat. She really doesn’t seem to know whether she had cough or fever or not … but she ain’t showing any signs now anyways.
• She tells us that she completed a questionnaire which asked if you take painkillers. She said she marked “on occasion” (the second time painkillers are referred to). We have to wonder why the questionnaire would ask people if they ever take painkillers – doesn’t the vast majority of the population – and what relevance this has to the virus?
• Rebecca talks about the ship approaching Tokyo but the host when speaking of location says “so there you are – about an hour and a half outside of Tokyo” then corrects herself, “outside of Yokohama”. Why would she correct to Yokohama?
• So we’re supposed to believe that Rebecca, in space-starved Tokyo, showing zero symptoms, is being accommodated in a private room and “being treated” for no symptoms, in other words, simply monitored? We are supposed to believe that? The host says, “Show us your room, looks like a western room.” As a commenter asks, “Does she think a Japanese hospital has tatami floors and paper walls?”
• Right at the end the host says, “Rebecca Frasure from her hotel … from her hospital room.” Doncha love it?
  
  

I could present quite a bit more on actors playing covid patients but I'll leave it as that one example.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Answer 2

The true test of a critical thinker is the ability to admit their argument is weak or wrong and I have no problem with doing that. While I thought my argument that people didn't experience a pandemic was the ultimate proof which would be necessary for there to be one - and obviously in Australia where there were only 30,000 cases reported of the alleged illness in its first year it would be difficult to have a sense of the existence of a pandemic because 30,000 cases simply does not represent a pandemic when the previous year there were 300,000 cases of the flu reported and there was no talk of pandemic - I was wrong in my assumption that everyone else had the same experience so happy to scratch that argument and while the preponderance of pandemic-themed films seems to be overly concentrated in the years before the pandemic started happy to scratch that argument too. I'll stick with the exercises argument, the point being that while the exercises don't prove the pandemic is fake - of course not - they nevertheless - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - support the hypothesis that this was a planned event. With the exercises we have this situation:
--- the scenario of one of the exercises is virtually identical to the real event the following year AND
--- towards the beginning of the pandemic in a press conference Mike Pompeo actually says "We're in a live exercise here" AND
---  this statement is directly followed by Trump saying very quietly, "You should have let us know."

Trump's response makes no sense for a real pandemic but it makes perfect sense for a psyop because within a psyop they give the game away by pushing out the actual truth in subtle ways and things that don't make sense. There is no way in reality that this psyop can be thought of as an exercise unfortunately as the measures against it have caused way too much harm for "exercise" to really be applied nevertheless Mike Pompeo said "live exercise".

So this is now my unarguable fact for the favouring of the psyop hypothesis over real pandemic.

"If testing stopped tomorrow there would no way to detect covid as it doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms and it is not clinically diagnosed. It is admitted that there is no gold standard test for covid and it is not a diagnostic test (the PCR test had the status Emergency Authorisation Use only and even that was revoked December 2021)."

If you can argue against that claim I'm all ears, Bo, but even if you can I think the argument is reasonable enough that you need to supply your own argument that you believe unarguable. So far, you haven't presented one. Hospital scenes and excess mortality do not make unarguable evidence - I've shown one patient in hospital whose story does not add up and I can certainly provide more; excess mortality also addressed.

Jason Mathias writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

Dr Bo is right, there is no such thing as an unarguable fact, and its asking for an impossible standard. Impossible standards are usually presented as a defense mechanism, a mind virus's preservation strategy so that one can forever remain in their desired belief. 

"What statistics show is that alleged covid mortality predominantly occurs in people in older demographics suffering co-morbidities so the question arises as to what these people really died from."

Seasonal flu also infects the elderly with demographics suffering from co-morbidities. Yet, we still have the increased death rates with Covid, and not the flu. So, to bring this up as an explanation doesn't make much sense. If Covid was just the flu, then we should expect to see the same as usual. We didn't see the same as usual. Therefore, it wasn't the same i.e wasn't the flu. 

"I know people who know people who've died who were suffering from a terminal illness where covid was put on their death certificate."

Ignoring the fact that "I know people who know people" is anecdotal telephone. I don't see anything wrong with putting covid as the cause of death. If someone had heart disease, was slowly dying of it, got covid and then they died earlier than they should have due to covid then why wouldn't you put covid on the death certificate? 

"Ground glass opacities isn't something unique to patients who've tested positive for covid."

I didn't claim it was unique to just covid. But its not something we normally see a lot in seasonal flu or the common cold as you were suggesting covid is.

"The alleged genome sequence is a computer fabrication" .... Bc scientists and experts "just go along to get along " bc they "don't want to understand it due to their pay checks" 

This is ridiculous and reminds me of the Dunning Kruger Effect. The genome sequence is not a fabrication, its been peer reviewed. (Your link has been flagged as Covid misinformation) Since we live in a monetary system, anything can be denied with this argument. Since every profession makes money, why isnt everything we do a hoax?? Why the double standard with just the covid scientists only? It also suggests that experts aren't actually experts if they get paid. Bc how can they be experts if they dont understand their expertise? Its just a saying, and yes it has some truth and can be applied to some things but not everything. Not this. 

 

 

 

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Jason Mathias ]

Hi Jason,

I can't argue with too many people at once so I'll just stick with Bo at the moment, OK? Just to point out that "peer review" doesn't mean unarguable fact. This is what Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ for 20 years has to say about "peer review".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

You should continue with Jason. I jumped in because I had time on the weekend. I will do a quick response to your responses then I am really done :)

Petra Liverani writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Hi Bo,

Can you just give me one fact that you believe is unarguable that favours real pandemic over fake. I hope you accept that excess mortality is not an unarguable fact as the cause of that excess mortality can seem to be one thing when it is another as I demonstrated. Just one fact ... and you can put it forward and say you're not willing to discuss it, I'm just curious to know what you would put forward as an unarguable fact.

My opinion about your argument is that you simply take the mainstream narrative as the default and that to claim what's happening is the opposite of that narrative couldn't possibly be true - essentially, Argument from Incredulity. You haven't put forward what you believe is an unarguable fact (excess mortality most certainly isn't one) and you haven't addressed my argument in a serious way, simply tried to refute my first point, however, it wasn't a great refutation and with tweaking that point stands stronger than it did. So you're acting as if my argument is preposterous with no case for the mainstream narrative and no refutation of mine, picking on a single point does not refute a case, and it wasn't a very good refutation in any case. I'm afraid you simply have no argument and are simply acting as though you do. Of course, you're not the first person to drop out of argument with me. Story of my life.

“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.” – Carole Wade

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

Why are you still using the term, "unarguable fact?" And you're asking for impossible standards again as everything accepted in science is peer reviewed. So you could just cherry pick the science that you don't like, then send this article to justify not accepting it. Its a science denier technique used by flat earthers, young earth creationists, climate science deniers etc. I mean, yes peer review isn't perfect, but its the best method science has at the moment. 

I remember looking at the peer reviewed paper on the genome sequencing of Sars Cov 2. I remember seeing the coding and everything. But you want us to believe that the expert researchers who did the research "didn't understand what they were doing just because they were being paid", and so they "just go along to get along" which isn't very likely. Its more likely and more probable that you a non expert are mistaken. 

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

"Seasonal flu also infects the elderly with demographics suffering from co-morbidities. Yet, we still have the increased death rates with Covid, and not the flu."

What we see Jason is that Covid is put on the death certificate more than the flu is, that's what we see.

With regard to covid being put on the death certificate where people are suffering from serious co-morbidities there are other sources saying the same thing, however, I'm not going to search them out.

So what's the percentage of people testing positive for covid showing ground glass opacities ... and did they have co-morbidities that might have produced those ground glass opacities?

So you know better than Upton Sinclair, Jason? He's "ridiculous". Okaaay.

Jason Mathias writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

"What we see Jason is that Covid is put on the death certificate more than the flu is, that's what we see."

What is your evidence for this? And could it be that its because covid kills more people than the flu? My grandparents when they were alive we're elderly and would get the flu and be fine. Obviously that wasn't the case with covid when it went through the nursing homes. Flu goes through nursing homes yet it doesnt kill most all of them in the wave. There was a clear and obvious difference between the two and how they affected nursing homes and the medical staff there that cared for them. I will use your logic now and say, "so you know better than the medical staff taking care of them? You know better than the vast consensus of all the scientists and experts etc?" 

"So what's the percentage of people testing positive for covid showing ground glass opacities ... and did they have co-morbidities that might have produced those ground glass opacities?"

The percentages were quite high with the first strand in those hospitalized. A lot of them did not have co-morbidities. Clearly something was different there than the flu. 

"So you know better than Upton Sinclair, Jason? He's "ridiculous". Okaaay." 

So you know better than the global consensus of scientists and experts, Okaay. 

Jason Mathias writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

Is what you are suggesting is a massive global conspiracy that is coordinated by every country on the planet, and every medical institution that did self harm. The pandemic was extremely costly to everyone so I cant see a psychological benefit of it to anyone. And Covid just comes, and then goes and everything is basically just as it was before. So, whats the point?

What would be the point of a psych op like that? Usually psych ops are perpetrated by one country against another for some kind of benefit. Or by one country against its own people for some kind of benifit. What would the benefit of this psych op be? Who would benefit? And how is this pandemic any different than the ones that have happened naturally in the past like Spanish Flu? They come, and then they go and life goes on.

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

I upvoted your answer, even though I do suspect a global conspiracy. It is hard, however, to understand how virtually every country in the world could have been a part of the conspiracy. Then again, if the disease was real - even if it was manufactured in a lab - then it isn't hard to understand why governments around the world would have panicked. At the same time, organizations like the World Health Organization have a lot of clout. Countries that didn't react as expected might have been threatened with various punishments.

How many countries' governments have spoken out against the phony war against terror? How many countries openly criticized Obama and NATO when they destroyed Libya? The silence is deafening.

You're also correct in asking what benefit could possibly derive from launching a pandemic that hammered countries around the world. At first I suspected the U.S. simply created a biological weapon designed to demonize China (by blaming China for COVID). But why would the U.S. inflict so much suffering on its own citizens? (On the other hand, keep in mind that the rich got a helluva lot richer. The U.S. government really doesn't care about ordinary citizens who were struck down by COVID.)

China is conquering the world without firing a shot. It's doing so through its belt and road initiative, which involves building in infrastructure in other countries. What do people who are engaged in commerce desire above everything else? One that that's certainly close to the top is stability. So, if the U.S. can destabilize the entire planet, that would hurt China more than the U.S.

That is a pretty wild conspiracy theory, but the U.S. has gone way about COVID in destabilizing the world. Our insane trade war against China is the cause of the global computer chip shortage, and it is probably the primary cause of the so-called supply line problems as well. Countless companies in the U.S. and other countries have been hurt by political actions designed to cripple China.

Regarding the Spanish flu, I see a big difference between it and COVID - technology. The Spanish flu struck during World War I, when biotechnology was primitive by today's standards. Today, scientists can do some amazing things, including things we probably aren't even aware of.

Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

David, there seems to be no button to click to respond to your answer to my question so I'll answer it here. 

When I saw the clear signs of a psyop on virtually Day One with images of people laid out on the ground and falling flat on their face and talk of the virus being found in two species of snake (seriously! they really over-egg the omelette) I immediately predicted that:
--- there would be no virus because in psyops they only do what they want for real and fake the rest and a real virus wouldn't work for their narrative in any case
--- multiple streams of propaganda would be pushed out to fragment and thus undermine the opposition argument.

Sure enough, as soon as I heard "Wuhan lab," I'm like, "Oh yeah, of course." About the same time a friend said that she had thought of the lab hypothesis even before she'd seen it on the internet and she was quite convinced of it. They're so clever at predicting how people will think and curating that message.

If you want to believe there really is a novel virus and it was made in a lab go right ahead, David, I cannot stop you.

Here's a couple of questions for you re 9/11:
--- When we look at the WTC after the three towers came down on 9/11 we can see that it is a scene of complete devastation. While we are told repeatedly of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 being destroyed very little attention is paid to WTCs 3, 4, 5 and 6 and yet all the buildings were effectively destroyed even if not razed to the ground on 9/11. However, deaths were only reported in WTCs 1, 2 and 3 (the Marriott - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2006/09/11/at-a-ground-zero-hotel-room-for-miracles/ef413df4-5747-4e9f-802f-2d1b4c5a711c/) not 4, 5, 6. While, of course, 7 came down so much later we might expect it to have been evacuated but 4, 5 and 6 like 3 would have been severely damaged at the times 1 and 2 were destroyed. What is your explanation for deaths in 1, 2 and 3 but none in 4, 5 and 6?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg

--- Who do you think more likely played a major role in the destruction of all seven buildings at the WTC? Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) who were responsible for clearing away the rubble at the WTC and who hold world records in bringing down large buildings and have a very impressive safety record or a bunch of Dancing Israelis? https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1 

I invite you to read my post:
Both believers and disbelievers of the 9/11 story must accept miracles and absurdities
Paradoxical? Not when you consider the 9/11 propaganda strategy and how mind control works
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/both-believers-and-disbelievers-of

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

Part of the problem is you think you know how psyops work. Do you really think the people behind psyops are so stupid that they would be that predictable?

Petra Liverani writes:
[To David Blomstrom]

They work on the very sound principle, if ain't broke, don't fix it.

I certainly don't think they would be so predictable if it didn't work, David, of course not, but the seemingly very counterintuitive fact is, it does, every single time, over and over and over and over, century after century, millennium after millennium.

They have 100% perfectly well-founded confidence in the limitless elasticity of the Emperor's New Clothes effect. Can you not see that with 9/11? I mean they didn't just have two planes sail into the twin towers without a breath of interception which of itself is completely against reality, quite awhile later with ample time to stop it if it was even possible in the first place and telling us that Dick Cheney was advised a number of times of a plane heading towards it, etc, etc they had a passenger airliner piloted by someone they told us couldn't fly a plane, sail it into the Defence HQ of the mightiest nation in the world ... and yet they knew they would get away with their preposterous story because it works every single time.

“The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” – Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist, my emphasis

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate ..."

That's not true. That is, propaganda can humiliate people, but it's probably more accurate to say it's general purpose is to - take a wild guess - persuade or convince. There's a lot of overlap between propaganda and advertising, and most ads are not designed to humiliate people.

Petra Liverani writes:
[To David Blomstrom]

When I read that quote it struck me as so incredibly insightful. If you it doesn't strike you that way you obviously do not see propaganda and psyops in particular the way I do, David.

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

"Usually psych ops are perpetrated by one country against another for some kind of benefit. Or by one country against its own people for some kind of benifit."

Some argue that the power elite - Rockefellers, Rothschilds, etc and corresponding people in other countries, etc - wish to reduce the population by killing and maiming with the mRNA jab, that's the benefit somehow, others argue it's going for transhumanism with the mRNA jab. Jason, I have to say I have no idea what the purpose is - whatever it is though it seems incredibly sinister and I do not understand how people are still going along with it when the jab is showing such obviously deleterious effects. It's always hard to determine who is in on it and who has been persuaded by the propaganda or who simply has no wish to contemplate what's really going on.

Rather than try to figure out motive first, the best thing is to figure out whether it is a massive psyop or real.

These are my last words on the subject:

In order to determine the truth what not to do:

• Don't avoid looking carefully at the argument for the opposing hypothesis and don't reach to find other possible explanations for single items within that argument aka cherry-pick.
  
  Bo presented a webpage presenting a number of pandemic-themed movies dating from 1957's Seventh Seal as an argument against my claim that there was a preponderance of tv/film artefacts appearing in the lead up to the pandemic. I just had a look actually and while the webpage headline says 33 there are actually 38. Of those films.
  17 appeared from 2010 onwards
  10 appeared from 2000-2009
  9 appeared from 1957-1999
  
  What we could make of those averages, no? In my point, I listed some films not included here and TV programs. No doubt it's true as Bo says that many more films are being made but how many more? Also, films were just part of my Point 1, I also included exercises which Bo ignored and when I re-did my point I separated out the Simpsons' House Cat Flu episode about a "phoney baloney" crisis orchestrated by a "secret enclave of media empires", also ignored.
  
  What Bo's argument against films in the lead up didn't do was DEBUNK my point. It didn't debunk it, it only offered possible alternative explanations with no clear evidence for those possible explanations.

What to do in preference:

• Ensure that you can defend your hypothesis against any challenge to it. Bo focused on only one point in my 13 and while he had a perfectly good argument against what I thought was foolproof - no experience of illness out of the ordinary - that was just one point too. What about the other 11? If someone has presented 13 pretty concise points rather than focus on one to try to debunk it ensure you can respond in some way to all - or at least a reasonable number - of them ... and ponder over those you can't.
• Avoid the attitude, "How can I debunk this point that favours the opposing hypothesis?" Instead always consider:
  --- Do I have a watertight case for my hypothesis?
  --- What hypothesis does this piece of information fit better?
  I don't know why Bo's personal experience fitted "real" pandemic perfectly, however, I know I've done due diligence on my hypothesis, so even though Bo's personal experience fits "real" better than it fits fake, I know there are other possible reasons - perhaps more flu cases in his local area? Bo asked if I thought all the images of people in ventilators were photoshopped. In fact, some people are claiming patients being put in ventilators is what caused death. People should only be put in ventilators when they're at death's door because being in a ventilator is a risk in itself. So no, Bo, I don't claim images of people in ventilators are photoshopped - rather something more sinister, like the explanation fitting excess mortality in Europe 2020 better than a novel illness - aggressive drug trials.
  https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200415/ventilators-helping-or-harming-covid-19-patients#1

Bo argued with the notion of an "unarguable" fact. I stand by my claim. There are some clear facts that people argue about anyway but some simply cannot be argued with - no one would even try. I certainly wouldn't claim though that interpretation of unarguable facts is necessarily unarguable, people will always, always, always argue. It is an unarguable fact that the PCR test's Emergency Authorisation Use (very weak in itself) was revoked in December 2021, that is an unarguable fact.

For your hypothesis to be correct I'd say there must be an unarguable fact that favours it over any opposing hypotheses. So far, I haven't been presented with an unarguable fact favouring real over fake. Excess mortality on its own won't do it, hospital scenes won't do it. What will do it?

I repeat my unarguable fact: the alleged covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms and is only determined by a test that is shown not to be a reliable test, it is not a clinically diagnosed condition. If testing stopped tomorrow there would be no way to determine who had the alleged covid and who didn't.

What needs to be realised is that history has been falsified to hide how the power elite have controlled us for centuries, if not much longer, with psyops and when you get that it is so much easier to accept what is happening now although I have to say even I find my credulity stretched to the limit on this occasion. I simply cannot believe it and it distresses me enormously.

Jason Mathias writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

The depopulation conspiracy theory is based on the Georgia Guide Stones. But, that has been debunked as its taking the guide stones out of context. The original context of the stones was about a post nuclear war world and how to live to prevent the next one. The video of Bill Gates is used as evidence for the conspiracy with him staying vaccines depopulate, but it was obviously taken out of context. The original context was contraceptives cause women to choose to have less kids in the developing world. Klaus Shwab's comments about owning nothing were also taken out of context. The original context was about guesses of what the future might be like. Its all just a bunch of paranoid delusional nonsense. Reducing the earths population from 8billion to 500mill would not benefit the elite. 

The transhumanism conspiracies have been debunked too. The mRNA vaccines do not change ones DNA. Thats not how they work. 

I got the covid vaccine and every single booster. So has my entire family, my brothers family and my parents. And we are all fine, the shots were a piece of cake and no weird side effects for anyone. Billions of gotten the vaccines and we dont see mass die offs. 

There literally is no motive for your psych op conspiracy theory that makes sense. 

You say you have no idea what it could be, but then you say that you know its sinister. So, you dont know but you know. It sounds like paranoia or something like that. 

I could argue that the PCR test's Emergency Auth Use wasn't revoked but only that it seems revoked because thats what they want you to see. They are lying to you blah blah etc. I can come up with a conspiracy theory to argue against it. I can say I dont know who did it, but I know its sinister etc. 

Its not just one fact that does it for me. Its all of them adding up together. A totality of cross aligning facts of reality etc. 

"covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms and is only determined by a test that is shown not to be a reliable test, it is not a clinically diagnosed condition. If testing stopped tomorrow there would be no way to determine who had the alleged covid and who didn't."

I dont really see any problems with any of the above. Different virus and illnesses affect individuals differently. Some tests are more accurate than others with different illnesses. The same goes for a lot of other viruses and bacterial infections yet you aren't arguing that those don't exist or are a psych op. So, Covid 19 could not be a psych op and still have these qualities. So, its not a smoking gun by any means. 

 

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Because something has been said to be debunked doesn't mean anything. Is it really?

"I could argue that the PCR test's Emergency Auth Use wasn't revoked but only that it seems revoked because thats what they want you to see. They are lying to you blah blah etc. I can come up with a conspiracy theory to argue against it. I can say I dont know who did it, but I know its sinister etc."

You're being absurd, no one's debating this.

"I dont really see any problems with any of the above. Different virus and illnesses affect individuals differently. Some tests are more accurate than others with different illnesses. The same goes for a lot of other viruses and bacterial infections yet you aren't arguing that those don't exist or are a psych op."

I'm not aware of any other serious illness that cannot be distinguished from other illnesses without a test - at some level it will be distinguished even if only at autopsy level, however, if you have one let me know. Also, where's the unarguable fact that favours real over fake? This is what is of paramount importance. I and others are making the counter claim but those who make the claim in the first place must have the unarguable fact that favours their claim over the counter claim. Where is it?

"... but then you say that you know its sinister. "

You must be very careful of strawmanning. I didn't use the word "know" I said "seems". In fact, I'll say KNOW now because the jab is killing and maiming people so that alone is very sinister - actually much worse than sinister.

I'm very glad that you and your family have not suffered any ill-effects from the jab ... and you don't anyone else either? There's quite a bit of documentation on the internet of serious side-effects and I know people who've suffered quite seriously including my aunt. I met a guy in my local cafe whose 34 year old sister died from the jab - in fact, it was written on her death certificate.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/she-wanted-to-do-her-bit-parents-call-for-covid-inquiry-after-death-of-daughter-20220516-p5aloj.html

These are my very final words on the matter, Jason. You can respond but I won't respond any more. I've said all I need to say.

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

"Because something has been said to be debunked doesn't mean anything. Is it really?"

You claim to have debunked the official narrative of Covid-19. So, using your own logic here I guess what you are claiming doesn't really mean anything. 

"You're being absurd, no one's debating this."

Sounds like a bandwagon argument to me. A lot of people debate the earth being flat, but that doesn't make it so. I could publish my conspiracy theory on the internet, and if it goes viral then according to you it becomes unarguable to those whom believe it to be true. 

"I'm not aware of any other serious illness that cannot be distinguished from other illnesses without a test"

They usually cant even tell the difference between a virus or a bacteria illness without a test. Strep throat, common cold, sinus infection etc.  

"Also, where's the unarguable fact that favours real over fake?"

I don't believe there is one that you will accept or wont try and argue against. This is why there is no such thing as an unarguable fact. You believe you have unarguable facts, but I am here arguing against them. I'm sure you'd do the same if listed so called unarguable facts that I believed supported my view. Also, facts are units, and units don't tell a story. The pandemic is a story. 

"I'll say KNOW now because the jab is killing and maiming people so that alone is very sinister"

Vaccines have always had a certain percentage of harmful side effects and even death. But that doesn't mean its done on purpose as thats what the word "sinister" implies. The vaccines save a ton more lives than they take. Thats how its always been. So, nothing new here. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

 I was diagnosed with COVID myself last December.

Then David, you are clearly part of the conspiracy :)

Was the virus manufactured? Was it released as a political weapon and got out of control? These are interesting conspiracy theories within the bounds of reality worthy of debate and discussion (but not here). But I will repeat, claiming the entire pandemic is a conspiracy and nobody actually had or died from COVID because it doesn't exist is BATSHIT CRAZY. I honestly believe that the only people who can hold that view are either a) people trolling b) people who are not mentally stable (e.g. suffer from paranoia, persecution complex, have delusions of grandeur, etc.) or, where I hope Petra falls in, c) have been isolated from pandemic due to strict lockdowns, thus did not have first hand experience with the virus, and fell deep in the shadows of the Internet where these theories fester and so far, has been unable to reason his way out.