Connect with us

Coronavirus

Research Shows Deliberate Chinese Propaganda Campaign Forced World Into Lockdown

Communist regime flooded social media with fake videos and bots to whip up COVID hysteria.

Published

on

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Researcher and attorney Michael P. Senger suggests that the Chinese government launched an aggressive propaganda campaign to exaggerate the severity of coronavirus in order to force the rest of the world into a draconian lockdown that would serve to benefit Beijing.

In an article for Tablet Magazine, Senger details how in late January, “international COVID-19 hysteria began” with a series of suspicious videos posted to social media sites showing people in China suddenly collapsing on the streets, including one instance where a man held out his arm to break his fall, suggesting the collapse was staged.

After tens of millions of people were confined to their homes during one of the most brutally enforced lockdowns in history, Senger notes how in February the CCP “reported an exponential decline in coronavirus cases, until March 19 when they announced their lockdown had eliminated domestic cases entirely.”

China has officially recorded just 4,634 deaths from coronavirus, despite having a population almost five times larger than the United States, where the current death toll stands at over 205,000.

The World Health Organization and other scientific experts then waxed lyrical about China’s response to COVID-19, which is what led to virtually every other country on the planet mirroring its approach.

However, Senger argues that the initial hysteria over COVID and lockdown that followed could have been a carefully orchestrated Chinese propaganda campaign to hoodwink its hegemonic competitors into destroying their own economies in response to a virus with a relatively low fatality rate.

The researcher documents how armies of Chinese bot accounts on Twitter were instrumental in promoting early lockdowns in countries like Italy while bombarding political figures who refused to order strict lockdowns, such as South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, with criticism and abuse.

He also highlights how Chinese state media organs savaged the “herd immunity” approach, which was initially considered but then rejected by several western leaders, as a violation of “human rights.”

Sweden, which went for the herd immunity approach by refusing to enforce a lockdown and came out economically better than any other European country, was also targeted by the bots, as was British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was accused of engaging in “genocide” by initially considering the herd immunity approach.

Senger’s conclusion explores why China aggressively emphasized the need for global lockdowns.

“The most benign possible explanation for the CCP’s campaign for global lockdowns is that the party aggressively promoted the same lie internationally as domestically—that lockdowns worked.
For party members, when Wuhan locked down it likely went without saying that the lockdown would “eliminate” coronavirus; if Xi willed it to be true, then it must be so. This is the totalitarian pathology that George Orwell called “double-think.” But the fact that authoritarian regimes always lie does not give them a right to spread deadly lies to the rest of the world, especially by clandestine means.”

“And then there’s the possibility that by shutting down the world, Xi Jinping, who vaulted through the ranks of the party, quotes ancient Chinese scholars, has mastered debts and derivatives, studies complexity science, and envisions a socialist future with China at its center, knew exactly what he was doing.”

Senger’s theory holds weight when one considers how China has now been back to “normal” for months, while western countries, still panicked by COVID hysteria, continue to lockdown their citizens and cripple their own economies despite hospitalizations and deaths due to coronavirus having flatlined in countries like the United Kingdom.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading
Comments

Coronavirus

Massive Peer-Reviewed Mask Study Shows ‘Little To No Difference’ In Preventing COVID, Flu Infection

Published

on

Zero Hedge

Getty Images / Compassionate Eye Foundation

A massive international research collaboration that analyzed several dozen rigorous studies focusing on “physical interventions” against COVID-19 and influenza found that they provide little to no protection against infection or illness rates.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, is the strongest science to date refuting the basis for mask mandates worldwide.

And of course, the CDC still recommends masking in areas with “high” rates of transmission (fewer than 4% of US counties, as Just the News notes), along with indoor masking in areas with “medium” rates of transmission (27%).

Masks are still required in educational institutions in Democratic strongholds such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington and California, according to the Daily Mail. Boston Public Schools denied its “temporary masking protocol” in early January was a “mandate,” following a public letter against the policy by student Enrique Abud Evereteze.

South Korea is still requiring masks on public transport and in medical facilities after dropping COVID mandates in most indoor settings, including gyms, Monday, Reuters reported. -Just the News

According to the Cochrane study, which included the work of researchers at institutions in the  U.K., Canada, Australia, Italy and Saudi Arabia, a total of 78 studies were analyzed. Most recent additions to the meta-analysis were 11 new randomized controlled trials.

As unlisted study author Carl Heneghan – who directs the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford noted on Twitter: “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks.”

The Danish study had trouble finding a major journal willing to publish its controversial findings that wearing surgical masks had no statistically significant effect on infection rates, even among those who claimed to wear them “exactly as instructed.” 

Mainstream media overlooked red flags in the Bangladeshi mask study, which found no effect for surgical masks under age 50 and a difference of only 20 infections between control and treatment groups among 342,000 adults. -JTN

Bottom line, mask wearing “probably makes little to no difference,” when it comes to influenza-like or COVID-like illnesses, regardless of type of mask used.

We’re sure the cult of Fauci will now start insisting peer-reviewed meta-analyses aren’t ‘the science.’

This post was originally published at Zero Hedge

Continue Reading

Coronavirus

Australian Health Authorities Call For More COVID Boosters… But The Public Says No

Published

on

Zero Hedge

Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images

Australia and New Zealand suffered some of the worst pandemic mandate conditions of any country in the western world, crossing the line into totalitarianism on a number of occasions. 

Australian authorities restricted residents of larger cities to near house arrest, with people not being allowed to go more than 3 miles from their homes.  Citizens were given curfew hours between 9pm and 5am.   They were banned from public parks and beaches without a mask, even though it is nearly impossible to transmit a virus outdoors and UV light from the sun acts as a natural disinfectant. 

In the worst examples, Australian citizens received visits from police and government officials for posting critical opinions about the mandates on social media.  Some were even arrested for calling for protests against the lockdowns. In Australia and New Zealand, covid camps were built to detain people infected with covid.  Some facilities were meant for those who had recently traveled, others were meant for anyone who stepped out of line.

As the fears over covid wane and the populace realizes that the true Infection Fatality Rate of the virus is incredibly small, restrictions are being abandoned and things seems to be going back to normal.  It’s important, however, to never forget what happened and how many countries faced potentially permanent authoritarianism under the shadow of vaccine passports.  If the passports rules had been successfully enforced, we would be living in a very different world today in the west.

Luckily, the passports were never implemented widely.  Australian health authorities are once again calling for the public to take a fourth covid booster shot, but with very little response.  Only 40% of citizens took the third booster, and new polling data shows that 30% are taking the fourth booster. 

With an astonishing rise in excess deaths by heart failure in Australia coinciding exactly with the introduction of the covid mRNA vaccines, perhaps people are deciding to finally er on the side of caution.  Why take the risk of an experimental vaccine over a virus that 99.8% of the population will easily survive? 

This post was originally published at Zero Hedge

Continue Reading

Coronavirus

NIH Failed To Monitor EcoHealth Alliance: Federal Watchdog

Published

on

Zero Hedge

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

After an 18-month audit, a federal watchdog says that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) failed to adequately monitor and address problems involving EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City-based nonprofit that was used to offshore risky gain-of-function research to Wuhan, China after the Obama administration banned the practice in 2014.

According to the report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the “NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address” compliance issues with EcoHealth.

In April 2020, after then-President Donald Trump claimed the SARS-CoV-2 virus could have come from the WIV lab, NIH terminated the EcoHealth grant with little explanation. That step was widely condemned by scientists, and OIG’s report now says NIH improperly executed the termination because it did not provide a valid reason or provide EcoHealth with required information for appealing the decision.

A few months later, NIH reinstated the award but immediately suspended it, setting conditions for resumption that EcoHealth said it could not meet. NIH permanently terminated the WIV subaward as of August 2022 for compliance issues, including WIV’s failure to provide NIH with laboratory notebooks related to the funded experiments. –Science

The audit examined the above grant, as well as two others from 2014 to 2021 which totaled $8 million, but largely focused on $600,000 of it which went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The NIH faulted EcoHealth for failing to promptly report gain-of-function results in some experiments, however the company has blamed a computer glitch at NIH for the 2-year delay.

Digging into the report is US Right to Know’s Emily Kopp, who has broken down various aspects of the OIG report.

Meanwhile, the audit also found that the nonprofit billed NIH for $89,171 in disallowed costs, including expenses such as alcohol, and a staffer’s $3,285 trip to a conference that was miscoded, and should have instead been billed to a non-NIH grant. 

The OIG recommends that the WIV (but not EcoHealth) be banned from receiving future NIH funds.

Meanwhile, EcoHealth just scored a fresh $3 million grant from the Department of Defense.

This post was originally published at Zero Hedge

Continue Reading

Trending