Tag Archives: manipulation

CDC is Manipulating Data to Hide Breakthrough Cases and Blame Unvaccinated for “Outbreaks”

How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”

New policies will artificially deflate “breakthrough infections” in the vaccinated, while the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.

by Kit Knightly
Off-Guardian.org

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.

They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

  1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
  2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

READ MORE

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/cdc-is-manipulating-data-to-hide-breakthrough-cases-and-blame-unvaccinated-for-outbreaks/

Photo: wikipedia

Cooking the CV books – manipulating the science & data to suit – a timeline (Lisa Haven)

Lisa Haven presents a timeline of how the data, stats, methods have evolved, all adding to the many anomalies questioning folk have been noticing. Don’t just swallow MSM’s narrative. Look deeper & read the independent info. EWR

Image by Colin Behrens from Pixabay

An open letter to Jacinda Adern re: COVID-19

This excellent article was contributed by New Zealand journalist Peter Drew who is clearly concerned & wants the word out. Please do share it far & wide. EWR

NOTE: the article has had over 52K views (47K of those by Kiwis) since posting … & 12K FB shares. It’s pleasing to see so many Kiwis are awake to what is going down.

By Peter Drew

Jacinda Adern

Prime Minister – New Zealand

Dear Jacinda,

I write this letter as a patriotic Kiwi with best intentions for my country and for the future health and welfare of my fellow Kiwis. You have a very difficult job at this moment in time. There can be no doubt about that.

There is a famous saying. “The first casualty of war is the truth”. Well, from what we are seeing around the world, the first casualty of a pandemic is not only the truth, but also rational thinking. That comment is directed at the COVID-19 situation in general rather than at you. In times of crisis, or potential crisis, emotion can be the enemy of truth and rational thinking. Especially fear. There has been a huge amount of emotion and fear flowing across New Zealand and the entire world the last few weeks. This letter attempts to momentarily push the emotion to one side and focus on rational thinking linked to facts and evidence.

Our country as we know it has been ripped apart in the blink of an eye, perhaps never to fully return. The economy and businesses decimated for the foreseeable future. Mental health problems and social problems set to explode with devastating consequences. The damage done is catastrophic. To inflict that onto the nation, there needs to be one heck of a good reason, and one heck of a strong case to do that. There needs to be an extreme level of critical danger in order to inflict this level of damage to try to safeguard the nation. Alongside that, we absolutely must balance that with an understanding that hindsight is always 20-20.

So, the question we need to approach with rational thinking, evidence, and facts is this. Was there/is there a sufficiently extreme level of critical danger facing New Zealand that warrants such damaging measures being taken? Is there a global pandemic of such unprecedented veracity and lethality sweeping across the world that it demands this extreme action for the good of the nation?

When initially informing the nation of the need for a full Level 4 lockdown, the rationale you put forward to the nation was, based on information from the global experts, that if these unprecedented extreme measures were not implemented, then upwards of 80,000 lives would potentially be lost. A terrible number indeed and worthy of the strongest level of consideration.

But let’s now have a look at what are some extremely disturbing pieces of information and perspectives that are emerging around this global catastrophe relating to what those global experts were, and are, saying. The evidence is now very clear from the top down, from our ‘global experts’, that the severity of the COVID-19 virus has been blown out of proportion by an enormous margin (despite what most of the media keeps hammering into us), both in terms of the initial projected mortality rates globally, and in terms of the actual reported numbers of deaths in each country. Alongside that, we have our global media that have whipped up a level of hysteria and fear that has been pumped through our entire DNA on a daily basis 24/7 to the point where COVID-19 has been perceived by the global public as nothing short of a doomsday plague.

The evidence now clearly shows a level of global miscalculation and deception/manipulation of rates of death from COVID-19 that can only be described as medical and political fraud.

COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China, under uncertain circumstances that are still being investigated. As COVID-19 began to spread to other countries, the Imperial College in London produced a piece of work where they used their computer modelling systems to produce some projections for what the global death rates were likely to be from COVID-19. The numbers were alarming to say the least, and the World Health Organisation (WHO) then began informing the world of the situation.

Now a few weeks further on, with the benefit of some hindsight, it is worth looking back at some of those projected numbers that were used to justify an unprecedented global lockdown. US projected deaths 2.2 million (updated projection 50,000 to 60,000), UK projected deaths 500,000 (updated projection 25,000 to 30,000), and New Zealand projected deaths 80,000 (updated projection – perhaps as low as 20).

If Imperial College had provided projections that were even somewhat within the vague ballpark of what we are now seeing, it is fair to say that implementing a catastrophic global lockdown would never have even been considered or accepted. For purposes of comparison, annual death rates from normal flu are 40,000 to 80,000 in the US, 20,000 in the UK, and around 800 in New Zealand.

Were the projections of the Imperial College consistent with what other similar medical science institutes and other scientists were saying? Absolutely not. Did the WHO consider what other institutes and other scientists were saying? It would seem not. Immediately upon the release of the Imperial College projections, Oxford University came back strongly saying that the Imperial College modelling was flawed (their reasoning outlined) and that as such their projected rates of death were significantly over-estimated, by a very large margin. https://www.dailywire.com/news/oxford-epidemiologist-heres-why-that-doomsday-model-is-likely-way-off. This position of Oxford University was backed up by numerous other high level medical experts around the world at the time. Here is a link to a highly informative interview with Dr Shiva, the inventor of e-mail at age 14, a world leader in Bio-Engineering, and now running for US Senate. https://youtu.be/6AHNoLhLPpI

Why did the WHO not take any of these other sources of information into account and instead just went with the doomsday projections of Imperial College with no questions asked? A point to note here. Bill Gates is the second largest funder of the WHO (behind only the United States), and also funds Imperial College.

The counter argument to this of course is that the reason the updated projections of deaths are so much lower now (by orders of magnitude of 20-40 times) is because of the extreme lockdown measures taken. Intuitively, this just doesn’t ring true to anything like that magnitude. Would New Zealand really have had 80,000 deaths if we hadn’t locked down? We also have numerous examples around the world where a lockdown wasn’t implemented, and rates of death were not noticeably higher. Sweden has not locked down at all, and have numbers of death relatively similar to lockdown countries. Nine states in the US did not lock down and their death rates are very small relatively. Australia did not go to Level 4 lock down and has a death rate virtually identical to New Zealand per capita.

The other factor that helped to instil huge hysteria and fear, and to justify a global lock down, was the death rate percentage that the WHO was initially telling the world. The WHO quoted a death rate of 3.4% for those infected with COVID-19. That is a catastrophic death rate (normal flu is 0.1%) and this helped create the doomsday death calculations around the world. It caused hysteria around the world, which was then magnified enormously by a rabid media.

The problem is that this death rate from the WHO was nothing short of fraudulent. It went completely against the standard methodology for calculating the mortality rate of a flu virus whereby you take the number of confirmed deaths and divide that by the estimated number of people who have been infected. Very simple. But that is not at all what the WHO did with COVID-19. They took the number of deaths and divided it only by the number of people who had been tested positive (a very small number). We know that the number of people being tested is only a tiny fraction of those who have actually been infected, by orders of magnitude of probably at least 10. Most likely much higher. As per the Oxford University analysis, they had estimated that probably half of the UK had already been infected earlier this year. This would have changed the COVID-19 mortality rate from the WHO’s doomsday level of 3.4% to something similar to a normal flu at 0.1%. Precisely what we are now seeing around the world, especially in New Zealand.

Perhaps the United States have some valid reasoning in the decision they have just taken to withdraw their annual $450 million funding for the WHO, pending a full investigation.

But if this information is not damning enough, it actually gets considerably worse. We have now seen that the reported number of deaths is hugely less than original projections of Imperial College, and most countries will likely end up with a number of deaths that is similar to normal flu. However, even these relatively moderate levels of reported deaths are seemingly being vastly overstated.

Hospitals around the world have a standard process for how deaths are categorised on their paperwork. To be listed as the flu being the cause of death it must be clear that flu was the primary cause of the person’s death. That is normal hospital process. However, for whatever reason, hospitals around the world have been instructed to deviate from that process with regards COVID-19. Anyone dying from any kind of respiratory issue or any kind of flu like symptoms are required to be categorised as dying from COVID-19, even if they have not even been tested for COVID-19. So, if you had a pre-existing respiratory issue and then died of normal complications of this, you are listed as having died of COVID-19 even if you haven’t even been tested for COVID-19. Here we have the Sir Patrick Vallance, UK Chief Scientific Adviser confirming this fact, as did Dr Deborah Birx who is leading on COVID-19 medical advice for the United States. https://youtu.be/HxKKTB2WBtY. This is medical fraud. It is as simple as that.

As well as this, if a person has at some point tested positive for COVID-19 and then subsequently dies of whatever cause, the hospitals are required to list the official cause of death as COVID-19 no matter what the actual cause of death might have been. For example, if someone was in the final stages of terminal cancer, or had had a massive stroke, but had previously tested positive for COVID-19, then the cause of death must be recorded as COVID-19. Just to make the point here with a crazy example, you could have some one tested positive for COVID-19 with zero symptoms and feeling absolutely fine, who is then run over by a bus. That person has to be listed as dying of COVID-19. We have to ask the very serious question of why this is being done like this? This has caused an enormous skewing of numbers on the rate of deaths from COVID-19. Listen here to the testimony of a Respiratory Therapist whistle blower in the United States as he describes this situation that seems to be consistent in hospitals across the world.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_title&time_continue=776&v=ZVe3PQ-dHwY

Consequently, in many countries we have seen the weekly death rates from pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses plummet relative to previous years because these types of deaths are now being categorised as COVID-19 deaths instead.

Italy is the country that was held up to the rest of the world as the case for justifying a full lock down. “We have to lock down otherwise we could be the next Italy”. However, it has since been acknowledged that, due to the reasons just outlined above, 99% of people who were reported to have died of COVID-19 in Italy had some other kind of serious illness, and that if standard recording processes had been implemented, the number of COVID-19 deaths in Italy would be approximately 12% of what has officially been reported to the rest of the terrified world. https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/23/italy-only-12-of-covid19-deaths-list-covid19-as-cause/

But even despite what seems to be a serious cooking of the books, the total rates of death in Italy during this COVID-19 period are not particularly unusual. Not something that has been well articulated by the media to try to dial down the level of fear and hysteria!

Now turning to New Zealand. We currently have 14 deaths (mostly very elderly people with serious health issues) and we have fluccuated between 10 to 20 people in hospital at any one time. This is after hospitals across the country moved heaven and earth to shift existing patients out and cancel thousands of upcoming appointments to prepare for the coming COVID-19 tsunami. A tsunami which never arrived. Barely even a gentle ripple in fact. This is not to say COVID-19 is not to be taken very seriously in New Zealand. It absolutely must. But the responses need to be proportional, and they need to be based on information that is as trustworthy and factual as possible in terms of severity and where/who is at the greatest risk. Protect and support those most at risk.

At the time of writing, we have approximately 1,500 positive tests for COVID-19 in New Zealand. Let’s take a fairly conservative estimate that 1 in 10 people who have been infected are being tested, bearing in mind that a large number of people who get infected are either asymptomatic (no symptoms) or very mild symptoms (Oxford University estimated half of the UK has been infected earlier this year). The conservative ratio of 1 in 10 would make the mortality rate in New Zealand 0.09% against a normal flu mortality rate of 0.1%. That is a conservative estimate. It is quite likely considerably lower than that.

Here is a twitter link to a Fox News journalist in the US being overheard on open microphone just prior to a press conference with President Trump, admitting that even in the much harder hit United States, studies on COVID-19 are showing mortality rates of 0.1%, the same as normal flu. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/hoax-fox-news-john-roberts-caught-hot-mic-discussing-covid-19-mortality-rate-technician-like-flu-video/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

So, we now know from the information and data in front of us, in our own country, what the severity level of COVID-19 is in New Zealand. This is real information that we have right now. Not the fraudulent death rates given to us by the WHO. There certainly is nothing even approaching an extreme level of critical danger that I mentioned at the beginning of this letter in order to justify a devastating lockdown. Mortality rates of a normal flu, at the very worst, but important to protect and support the elderly and the health vulnerable who are most at risk.

So if we now know this, why is New Zealand not fully open and operational right now? Every single day that New Zealand is in full or partial lockdown is utterly devastating for our country. We initially were put into this lockdown position through a quite mind-blowing level of negligence, fraud, deceit, or whatever you want to call it, from the global ‘experts’, for whatever reasons. That situation requires the highest level of investigation, as the United States have already indicated. Right now, all we can do in New Zealand is to take the information we now have, use some calm and rational thinking, and do what needs to be done.

We need to get the country back to work in trying to rebuild and reclaim our nation from the devastation that has sadly been caused. We also need to be very aware of the circumstances that led to this catastrophic situation so that lessons can be learned to prevent similar situations in the future. We need to get New Zealand going again, right now!

To finish with, I will switch back from rational thinking to emotion. Emotion does have a very necessary role with this situation. You, the NZ government, the medical establishment, and the entire country should be extremely angry about what has happened to our country. It has been utterly devastated, seemingly for no justifiable reason other than a fraudulent level of misinformation, deceit, exaggeration, and hysteria from our so called global experts.

Extremely serious questions need to be asked, investigations launched, and people and organisations held to account.

Yours sincerely,

Kiwi Patriot

“If my sons did not want war there would be none” Gutle S Rothschild: How wars are fomented for profit

Published on Mar 22, 2018


 


mother-of-rothschild-brags-about-faked-wars-by-rothschilds.jpg

‘Consultation’ & the little known Delphi technique – promoting the illusion of democracy & helping you think you’ve had a say

Here are three items introducing the Delphi Technique, used globally in those meetings where you’re consulted, yet you still feel railroaded and haven’t been heard at all. It’s not your imagination. This is a real eye opener. It’s how their agenda (Agenda 21/30) is carried out without your knowing. Hence all the public-excluded meetings these days when they discuss the real agenda with the chosen few. If you’re not on their page you’ll be excluded. And Councils use this technique it when ‘consulting’ you. On the public stuff, making you think you’ve had input. Do read these articles, they’re not too long. The definition of consultation for LG’s own magazine tells you the decision’s already been made, then your views are sought. Excerpt below… ‘5. Engagement vs Consultation’:

Copy of consult 4.png


First article by Lyn Stuter

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “Lay, or community, participation in the decision­making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the “Alinsky Method” (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The “change agent” or “facilitator” goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms “task forces,” “urges everyone to make lists,” and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the “leaders,” the “loud mouths,” as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument ­ the “weak or non­committal.”

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes “devil’s advocate.” He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the “divide and conquer” technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear “ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic.” He/she wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

 

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The “targets” rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

READ MORE:

https://seanet.com/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM


A further article on the Delphi Technique by Abert V Burns

Let’s Stop Being Manipulated

More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.

Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.

Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.

The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.

However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a predetermined end.

How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined.

First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize.

It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.”

Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience.

The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.

At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion—or ‘breakout’—groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator.

Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.

READ MORE

http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html


And finally, a video showing how to derail the Delphi Technique

 

Published on Oct 29, 2014

On Oct 8, 2014, MTC held a meeting to discuss the Public Participation Plan for the next round of Plan Bay Area 2017. Their agenda was to force people to sit at tables. This is classic Delphi Technique to stifle dissent. When they tried to force people to tables after the general presentation, Mimi Steel, Peter Singleton, and Margaret Gordon forced the issue of having public comments first. MTC reneged under pressure and allowed public comments. The result was a major outcry from most of the participants that the meetings are rigged and that public input, even if presented, is completely ignored because MTC and ABAG already have determined the policies and are just checking the square because “public participation” is required but actual public input that does not support the plan can be ignored.

New Tech Shows Why You Can’t Trust Anything You See on the News

Most people who’ve learned to question will know by now that what is called ‘mainstream media’ (I call it lamestream) can no longer be trusted to inform you of news facts in an unbiased and truthful manner. The ownership of the media for starters is now down to around six corporations, from many times that say ten years ago.

media-con

Remember, corporations don’t have your best interests at heart. What we see and hear is carefully funneled to us … selectively at that. What you don’t get to see, just as important as what you do, creating the desired perception of reality to suit. You may not have been aware but during recent TPPA protests throughout NZ, the Herald reported  a few hundred protesters, when in fact there were 25K+. Currently then your best shot at getting to the truth of all news is to visit truth sites on the internet. Your daily newspaper is just not going to do that for you. Unless of course you are only wanting data on last week’s dog trials and some gardening and culinary advice.

To complicate matters further, according to this video, you will see how what you learn is manipulated to an even more devious degree with even more refined technology that can artificially create the reporter’s body language for you … and more …

EnvirowatchRangitikei

 


 

Published on Mar 21, 2016

https://youtu.be/YKkuWX406q4 I’m not even sure what to write for a description. What else can you say? It’s the Matrix.

More info on Stanford’s website: http://www.graphics.stanford.edu/~nie

Face2Face: Real-time Face Capture and Reenactment of RGB Videos (CVPR 2016 Oral): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmaj

We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxTaf

H/T Dag Wood

Truthstream Can Be Found Here:
Website: http://TruthstreamMedia.com
FB: http://Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia
Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX


12651167_10153946515957472_3941046761188974126_n.jpg


3819_original