“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” — Noam Chomsky, How the World Works

One of the consolations of the shameful spectacle of the last three years has been the example set by men and women of principle and intelligence who have stood up against this biomedical coup. In many cases we have witnessed individuals forced to undergo radical paradigm shifts, revolutions in worldview; one such is Dr Mike Yeadon, the former Pfizer CSO who describes himself as having been thoroughly middle-of-the-road in outlook — someone who would chuckle to himself if he overheard people discussing ‘conspiracy theories’ — until events forced him into a radical rethink of pretty much everything he took for granted. Yeadon has shared his thinking as he has undergone the kind of accelerated re-education that takes most of us many years, facing this painful and disorienting process with honesty and humility. He has proceeded with transparent logic at every step and arrived at a rather interesting and crucial point.

Yeadon is the man who first started making noise about the fraudulent use of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technique to diagnose ‘covid-19’. I was already aware of problems with the test because I remembered the controversy around its use during the AIDS ‘pandemic’ in the nineteen eighties, and the fury of its inventor, Kary Mullis, over its misuse as a diagnostic tool, for which it was never intended. But now Yeadon was putting some hard numbers on the problem, calculating the numbers of false positives which could be expected at the cycle thresholds used in the Drosten PCR kits, and placing them well into the 90{7afbbc0afb0c7a66aa968a61965a5f55aa54e1a53c5ce8d1dec42cbaeedea50c} range. During periods of low or moderate prevalence, such as pertained in the autumn of 2020, a false positive rate of around 1{7afbbc0afb0c7a66aa968a61965a5f55aa54e1a53c5ce8d1dec42cbaeedea50c} of tests administered could easily exceed the prevalence of the infection itself: most or all positive test results would be false, sustaining the perception of an ongoing pandemic when in fact it was already over. It was Yeadon who drove home the understanding that the excessive use of an unstandardised test with an undeclared false-positive rate underpinned all aspects of the ‘pandemic’ construct: cases, deaths, hospitalisations, the ‘R’ number, all of it. In autumn of 2020, as the UK government prepared the public for a ‘second wave’ he was warning that we could be reacting to a phantom pandemic of false positives. He credits his friend the pathologist Clare Craig with spotting the smoking gun: an epidemic of false positives, unlike an actual contagion event, would be evenly spread across all age-groups, which indeed turned out to be the case.

And now he was beginning to think the unthinkeable: “If they wanted us to be fearful,” he mused in an interview, “the best way to do it would be to carry on using a test that produces mostly false positives.”

Eighteen months down the road, Yeadon is still following that cold logic. In his latest article and follow-up interviews he reflects on the strategic seeding of narratives in the media-political landscape to anchor the public perception; specifically, the current dominance of a counter-narrative that was originally blocked and censored, concerning the origins of the virus. The question for him is “why there is such an emphasis on the media storm around Fauci, Wuhan and a possible lab escape. After all, the ‘perpetrators’ have significant control over the media. There’s no independent journalism at present… I put it to readers that they’ve chosen to do so, in order to force people to choose between two narratives, both of which are centered on the existence of a novel respiratory pathogen.”

The pattern he is describing here has been noted before in the construction of strategic narratives around major psychological operations. It certainly could be a classic example of the deployment of controlled opposition in a strategy of narrative control. We can see it clearly in the narratives surrounding the 2001 terrorist attacks in Manhattan. The September attacks of the first year of the second millennium, which coincided with the widespread public uptake of the internet, provides the model of how this dialectic works. The official story, quite obviously, is a lie; but at the same moment, an opposing narrative is propagated, which contradicts the first but protects the essential reality of the situation, preserving the key perceptual assets, so to speak, of the perpetrators.

With 9/11, the counter-narrative was that elements of the government and Western intelligence agencies had themselves organised the attacks or at the very least allowed them to happen, surrounding the terrorists with rings of protection, and in some scenarios even guiding the planes to their targets using remote control flight termination technology.

As in the covid counter-narrative, i.e., the release of the pathogen from a research laboratory, the security apparatus charged with protecting the public has been subverted against it. In both cases the implications are explosive, extremely threatening to normal perceptions of political reality, and represent a considerable sacrifice on the part of the establishment using it as a fall-back position.

The second story is much closer to reality than the first, and seems much more credible to anyone inclined to scepticism about government ethics, because it appears to have been wrested from the clutches of offical secrecy as a result of brave investigative journalism or heroic whistle-blowing. But that’s what Yeadon doubts, after three years of experiencing at first hand the monumental control over the media exercised by corporate-political forces. Believing that no story appears in the media unless it suits the establishment, he must consider the possibility that the counter-story is in fact propagated through establishment disinformation channels. Thus, no matter how much truth the second story contains, it is still designed to conceal the essential reality, to protect someone, or something. There is a third story beneath it, layered with traps and calculated dissimulations, and the third story is the truth.

So what is the third story? What is the secret that must protected at all costs, even to the extent of potentially sacrificing all trust in public institutions? Yeadon, of course, is not extrapolating from 9/11, but the answer is the same. The third story is that it’s all an illusion; that none of it was real; the precession of simulacra, in Baudrillard’s phrase.

In the case of 9/11, Simon Shack, a citizen journalist with experience in digital animation, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the images of planes striking buildings were not real; his documentary, September Clues, proves that whether supposedly captured by network cameras or by amateurs with cellphones, the images are composites using digital overlays. By comparing the distribution of live images on the day, Schack concludes that they were disseminated to the five major networks from a central feed; with local stations taken off air and all cell-phone networks down, imagery-control was imposed on the South Manhattan theatre.

This doesn’t mean the explosions were not real, or that people didn’t die. But the planes we saw on TV were two-dimensional animations: simulacra, not real planes. Once this is understood it is easy to decode the basic methodology: the towers rigged with explosives, air-to-surface cruise missiles fired into the buildings, planted ‘eyewitnesses’ ready for interview, a central feed supplying images to the TV networks, and ‘the wire’ (Reuters and the Reuters-owned Associated Press) providing the narrative. And that is the third story, the one that must at all costs be protected: that the media system could be mobilised under central control to promote a simulation as reality.

That was the third story then, and it’s the third story now, and Yeadon is giving house-room to radical doubts.

Well, look at it.

The behaviour of the ruling classes did not reflect fear or concern about the virus. In the UK, the prime minister had to stand down after the exposure of a series of staff parties at 10 Downing Street; the Health Minister resigned after being photographed in a sweaty clinch with an assistant; in June 2021, the 94-year-old monarch was allowed to attend a G7 reception with forty or fifty guests who were not screened or quarantined.

Throughout the progress of the pandemic, and despite systematic attempts to locate them, no samples of the virus were available anywhere on the planet. It is clear that no isolation of the virus in vivo has ever taken place; instead the genetic code provided by the CCP was used in production of the vaccine.

All-cause mortality figures for 2020 show no statistical signal of a pandemic; notwithstanding some local ‘spikes’, overall mortality remained consistent with five-year averages. The simultaneous ‘disappearance’ of the flu from early 2020, and at same time the appearance of a ‘new’ disease with identical symptoms, makes the conclusion irresistable that influenza and influenza-like illnesses had been rebranded as covid; when the Drosten-PCR test was finally withdrawn by the USCDC it was admitted that it could not distinguish between covid and flu.

The deliberate release of a new pathogen, even one designed for the purpose, could never guarantee the degree of control desired by the perpetrators; it might fizzle out with little effect, or recombine to produce an unpredictable degree of lethality. Only a fictitious pandemic, a pandemic of fear, could be guaranteed to remain under tight control.

And that’s the third story; there was no pandemic, just as there were no planes; it was all an illusion.

Where does that leave us? Living ‘in a diabolical world’, in Yeadon’s phrase, dealing with an ongoing crime against humanity that dwarfs anything in history. The vaccine may have killed up to 15 million people already, in Yeadon’s conservative estimate, and has likely sterilised the vast majority of the 6 billion who took it. Yeadon has no doubt, at this point, that the end-game is not just totalitarian control but depopulation.

“I believe the main reason for the lies about the novel virus is a desire for total predictability and control, with the clearly articulated intention of transforming society; beginning by dismantling the financial system through lockdowns and furlough, while the immediate practical goal of lockdown was to provide the casus belli for injecting as many people as possible with materials designed not to induce immunity, but to demand repeat inoculation, to cause injury and death, and to control freedom of movement. I’m sure they’re pretty content with getting at least one needle into 6,000,000,000 people.”

So it was never about a novel pathogen; it was always about the vaccine.

But what about the vaccine?

That’s a question to which I don’t think we yet have a full answer. To sterilise most, to kill many, that seems certain. But what else?

Once you start thinking the unthinkable…