Pandemic 2020: From Statistical Fraud to Controlled Society (2)
By Vincent Mathieu, PhD
(Canadian doctor of psychology
and group therapist)
Read the first part of the article
Are we collectively Molière’s imaginary patient? Sick for fear of being sick; who begs for his therapy to be saved to the great joy of a greedy and overcautious medicine. If this is the case, the decisions taken by public health must be denounced, especially given the social and economic impacts they have had. Among these impacts are deaths and lives that should also have been saved.
Medical and media authorities say that containment has saved lives. They also claim that limiting the transmission of the virus in order to flatten the curve has avoided overflowing the emergency room and thus facilitated the allocation of care to sick patients. This last point is relevant because this unknown virus may have required erring on the side of caution rather than the other way around. The complications – often non-lethal – associated with Covid-19 can cause major stress to health care teams and this aspect deserves to be highlighted. But again, does the strategy of designating certain receiving hospitals to receive Covid-19 patients not increase the problem of overcrowding? By distributing patients across the emergency departments of all hospitals, as is usually done, we might also have distributed the workload. In Quebec, on the other hand, there does not seem to have been a congestion problem. When the media talk about an outbreak problem in a hospital, it does not mean that there is an overflow in that hospital. It means that the virus has spread across the floors, not that there is a shortage of beds.
Based on the information we have reviewed, there is every indication that there is something fishy going on. This massive containment, based on predictions and inflated numbers, looks like a bazooka crushing everything in its path as it tries to kill a fly. Several specialists question the containment strategy, claiming that it does not correspond to good epidemiological practice. Good practice would rather require diagnosing, treating and isolating the sick, but allowing the healthy population to circulate and collectively immunize themselves. Jean-Dominique Michel, a Swiss anthropologist and public health expert, is one of those who think this way (14):
“We then adopted measures that were absolutely contrary to good practice: we gave up screening people who might be ill and confined the population as a whole to stop the spread of the virus. These measures were in fact medieval and problematic since they only slowed down the epidemic at the risk of potentially even worse rebound phenomena. And that they lock up everyone while only a small minority is concerned”.
Dr Didier Raoult, in a video posted online on 17 March 2020, comes to the same conclusion. He proposes that confinement is not necessary, even deleterious (15):
“There are real logistical, pragmatic, rational measures to put in place and treat it like a normal disease. But if at the same time we set the fire and say you’re all going to die… It’s not possible to panic the population with something that won’t change the mortality statistics, I mean there won’t be more deaths than there were in previous years, that’s not true… Listen for what I saw quickly, the three countries whose situation is not currently controlled are Italy, France and Spain, so they’re probably not models. So the confinement in Italy doesn’t prevent it from continuing to evolve exponentially. It continues to evolve exponentially in France and Spain, and these three countries have decided to put containment at the forefront. We can ask ourselves whether we should not think about it, now accept to change our opinion, which is a form of intelligence under the pressure of events, and start again on what Korea has done, that is to say multiply the tests, treat people and isolate only the positive people… And when they are no longer contagious, we must leave them in peace. It’s not worth keeping them for 14 days if they’re negative after 5 days, it’s no longer science, it’s science fiction or I don’t know what, witchcraft”.
There is no consensus in the scientific community on the strategy of containment and closure of businesses and industries. Sweden, which has not opted for this massive containment strategy, has been strongly criticized and portrayed as the bad pupil in the majority of the media. However, a Swedish epidemiologist, Professor Johan Giesecke, believes that containment has no scientific basis and that Sweden will have more or less the same record as the other Scandinavian countries at the end of the crisis (16). Dr. Daniel Erickson is also of the opinion that the containment strategy is questionable. As he mentions:
“If you’re playing with people’s constitutional rights, you better have a good reason, not just a theory. The data show us that it is time to lift the containment orders. So if we don’t lift them, what’s the reason?”
According to Dr. Erickson, confinement is even deleterious to the immune system of healthy people. Our immune system is strengthened by contact with viruses and bacteria and weakened in a sanitized environment.
Banning gatherings of more than two people and restricting travel, closing schools, shutting down several economic sectors and putting a halt to several health care services (physical and mental) have caused so many problems at various levels that the remedy imposed by health authorities has made society sicker than the coronavirus. There is no justification for the social and economic crisis into which we have been plunged.
It is safe to say that the tragedy that has occurred in seniors’ homes in Quebec and elsewhere is a direct result of the climate of panic caused by the WHO and the PSD through their distorted data. Already limited human resources in CHLSD and hospital centres have been undermined by the desertion of several employees who were frightened by a virus that was presented to them as a killer, but which, on balance, looks like a scarecrow. The seniors who died in CHSLDs during the health emergency surely died more from negligence and the consequent deterioration of their state of health than from the Covid 19.
The virus was presented to them as a killer, but in the end it looks like a scarecrow. We even heard grieving families, who were forbidden to visit their sick relatives, say that their sick relatives had let themselves go because of a lack of human contact and care. In addition, there have been and will continue to be collateral deaths resulting from the suspension of several medical services (e.g., cardiology, oncology) that have led to the postponement of surgeries and diagnostic evaluations that are so important to people’s health. In addition, there were psychological problems and suicides related to the disastrous consequences of the system shutdown, particularly among people with fragile mental health or those who had put all their savings into their small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). And what can we say about the frightening deconfinement that is being proposed to us and will direct our children to a school or daycare centre that they no longer recognize, framed by austere rules and masked educators.
At a time when the data on mortality rates are being drastically revised downwards, it is my opinion that the governments and the DSPs that constantly support the need for containment and social distancing to protect themselves against a pseudo-health danger are directly responsible for the crisis and its impacts (the Trudeau administration and the Canadian DSP are particularly buoyant in this discourse).
The mainstream media, particularly the television news, which slavishly and almost without nuance relay the authorities’ fallacious discourse, are also responsible. They have abandoned their role as public watchdogs. Their mandate to inform the public by giving them access to facts and a diversity of opinions in order to encourage informed reflection has been vilely relegated to oblivion. Rather, it is the citizens themselves and the alternative media that give voice to dissent and the scientific facts necessary for the development of critical thinking. The situation is certainly not new, but it has been unequivocally exposed in recent months.
The crisis we are experiencing is not a global health crisis, but a political crisis, a clear illustration of the failure of our governmental and media institutions. The members of these institutions have blood on their hands, for their incompetence and even bad faith have caused the collapse of existing human systems and the resulting social and health distress. Again, let us applaud the tremendous work done by the people at the grassroots level: the health workers, the transport workers, the emergency services, the county MPs, the teachers who have offered online courses and so on. The solidarity of the common people has been extraordinary and I hope it will maintain the social fabric that the political and media elites are trying to tear apart. We will have to be strong, because we will only be able to gauge the full impact of this crisis in several months, if not years.
It is towards this horizon that our gaze must now turn, because we are well aware that this crisis is surely not caused for nothing.
– What can lead governments to take such a course of action?
– What interest can medical authorities and their media outlets have in panicking people?
– Have the authorities been caught up in the intensity and suddenness of the crisis?
– As some have imagined, were they caught repairing a plane that broke in midair?
The current state of the world leads me to believe that the reality is not so light. A few whistleblowers have already lent their voices to denounce this emergency situation, which has insidiously led us to a society where civil liberties are being eroded (17). The ban on gathering under penalty of a fine, incitement to denunciation, police control of movements, espionage by geolocation and the use of tracking drones, and soon mandatory vaccination and the health passport are all measures that are incompatible with a free and democratic society. In the space of a few weeks, they have become acceptable in the eyes of public opinion.
We can believe these are temporary measures, but history suggests otherwise. The Patriot Act that followed the World Trade Center attacks in 2001 and the emergency measures introduced in France following the attacks of 13 November 2015 have “become a permanent part of the law and common customs of these two countries” (18). If we are to judge the tree by its fruits, we are to judge the source of the crisis by its effects. And if the effects of the crisis are the collapse (19) of the economy and the advent of an increasingly controlled society, it is perhaps because the road to crisis was already paved. Social, fiscal and monetary reforms await us in the wake of recent events. I do not believe that this pandemic is a plane that we are trying to repair in mid-flight.
It is a planned, structured and strategic crisis. Developing this hypothesis would require far too much analysis to be done with sufficient clarity in such a short article. I reserve this task for another book in the hopefully near future. The analysis of the Covid-19 data seems to me too pressing a necessity to defer its publication and this article has been written in this awareness of time. Resistance to the lies of political-media elites requires dialogue and rapid information sharing, especially in the age of the Internet where this information is freely available and can serve as a shield against mass media propaganda.
Nevertheless, let us take the time to conclude with a reflection on the current state of the political world. We are “at war,” says French President Emmanuel Macron. A worrying term, carefully chosen rhetoric, it puts the people on the alert and makes them docile. We are at war with a virus that has a mortality rate roughly similar to influenza? We are at war with a virus that kills mostly the elderly and sick, who are vulnerable year after year to seasonal viral infections? I personally believe that the war we are fighting is an information war. In the times to come, we will be bombarded with alarming speeches, including the one on the rebound of the epidemic and the second wave.
We have heard the WHO’s speeches about the uncertainty of herd immunity and the probable resurgence of contamination. According to several experts, this possibility is, on the contrary, unlikely because the new coronavirus seems to follow a typical spread curve marked by a sharp increase and a continuous decrease in infected cases (20). Dr. Didier Raoult even describes the idea of a second wave as “fanciful” because it is based on the memory of the Spanish flu which would have been, in history, an exception to the rule (21). As far as immunity is concerned, to catch a respiratory virus and not die from it means having developed antibodies against it. It is true that in some individuals, several infections are necessary before they are immune. Nevertheless, herd immunity is a reality that is demonstrated by a simple historical study of epidemics (22).
That won’t stop the terror merchants from selling us the danger. He who controls people’s fear becomes the master of their souls, Machiavelli said (23). To succeed in shaking our economic and social systems, the crisis must be long, very long. The WHO has already proposed abusive means to stem the pandemic. Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergency Programme, proposed on 30 March this measure, which is beyond comprehension (24):
“In most parts of the world, because of containment, most of the transmission currently occurring in many countries is occurring in the home, at the family level. In a sense, transmission has been taken out of the streets and pushed back into the family unit. Now we have to go into families to find those people who might be sick and remove them, and isolate them, in a safe and dignified way.”
A highly influential global organization tells us that, pro bono, people should be sought out in their homes to be removed and isolated away from their families. This does not seem to have been put into action, but illustrates the state of panic in which people are being put. In order to get people to accept such vexatious measures, fear must be rampant. A large number of people are already caught up in this fabricated fear. And any means can be good to maintain it, or even amplify it. That is why political resistance to the liberticidal tendencies of governments is actively needed. It is essential that the people welcome the suggestions and decisions of the authorities with a great deal of scepticism. Asking questions, doubting, checking, talking and disobeying are citizen weapons within our reach. Free thought is still not in confinement. It is up to the people still in love with their freedom to use it.
And that’s what freedom is all about. From the book of Exodus to La Boétie’s Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, from the Orwellian Big Brother to The roots of totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, the question of freedom has not taken a wrinkle. Perhaps this is where contemporary men and women are going astray: believing that the fight for freedom is a thing of the past, no longer distrusting their government and relying on its good offices. As the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec stated (17):
“The dictator is not born of himself. He is born from the fact that the citizen wishes to be protected”.
Today, the masks are coming off. Dictatorship is being revealed more than ever in its international form. We have witnessed how a crisis in Asia can, in the space of a few weeks, very similarly affect the lives and rights and freedoms of different populations overseas. The fate of national peoples is more closely linked than ever before: the global coordination of public health operations under the auspices of the WHO, the talk of a world government, the proposal for a world currency. These are not just dystopian anguish fantasies, but more or less imminent realities that some people have been thinking about for a long time.
For Arendt, totalitarianism is a dynamic of destruction of reality and social structures, more than a political regime. She describes it as international in its organisation, universal in its ideological aim, planetary in its political aspirations (25). The current situation cannot be better described. The nations of the world are faced with a globalist cabal that relies on fear to govern them. This governance is today unofficial and rests on its tentacles such as the WHO, the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Tomorrow, at the turn of a major crisis, it could become official.
It is to this end that chaos and anguish will set in among the population. The war on communism, the war on Islamic terrorism, the war on climate change and now the war on viruses; the object is variable, the fear constant (26). The political authorities pose as protectors of the vulnerable and frightened citizen. The solution proposed, or even imposed, is to barter freedom for security. Give up your freedom in exchange for more security and you will end up losing both, as the saying goes. This is a delicate balance that sometimes leans towards a point of no return.
“It is the people who enslave themselves, who cut their throats, who, having the choice of being serf or free, renounce their independence and take the yoke… all men, as long as they have something human, allow themselves to be subjugated for only two reasons, by constraint or by deception” (27).
Once deception has been unmasked, there is no longer any reason to give up one’s freedom. Unless we have nothing human left.
(17) https://www.lapresse.ca/covid-19/202004/21/01-5270281-un-avocat-veut-forcer-quebec-a-deconfiner.php; https://www.lapresse.ca/covid-19/202004/22/01-5270373-la-covid-19-dangereuse-pour-la-democratie-dit-le-lieutenant-gouverneur.php; http://histoireengagee.ca/une-epidemie-du-controle/
(19) With the amount of liquidity injected into the system (5 trillion invested by the G20 countries – central banks buying back hundreds of billions of dollars in stock and bond securities) added to the astronomical amount of new money already created by quantitative easing policies since the 2008 crisis, the money supply has become immeasurable. With interest rates ridiculously low, even negative in some countries, classical economics and history make a simple prognosis. A currency that is so cheap becomes unstable and weakens, inflation gallops and gnaws away at purchasing power, the value of money and certain assets inevitably erodes (pensions, life insurance policies etc.). False wealth based on credit, money-debt, comes to the end of its cycle. The abrupt shutdown of the economy will cause bankruptcies, credit managers will take over the management of production. As in any economic crisis, wealth is not lost, it is transferred. The political and economic elites, these pyromaniac firefighters, are proposing solutions that a people on its knees cannot refuse.
(22) Ray M. Merrill, Introduction to Epidemiology, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2013.
(23) Nicolas Machiavelli, Le Prince, Editions Ivrea, 2001.
(25) Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Gallimard, 2002.
(26) In what they call the “fabrication of consent,” Herman and Chomsky describe the media filter through which government agencies and big business promote their interests. Opinion control mechanisms require a target to focus on in order to distract the population from the real aims of these state and private bodies. Chomsky suggests that at the turn of the 21st century, the war on terrorism has replaced anti-communism as the main control mechanism. (Sources: Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988; Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Open Media Pamphlet, April 1997.)
Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the media are always involved, voluntarily or indirectly, in creating a climate of fear to “manufacture opinion”. Arguably, the current alarmist rhetoric about health disasters is part of these control mechanisms to influence public and economic policies to the detriment of the people.
(27) Étienne de la Boétie, Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Librio, 2018.
October 23, 2020