Marketing the COVID Terror: when a sales pitch masquerades as “information”

by Fabian Ubiquitus

It has been fascinating to watch how subversive factions have conjured the “COVID Terror” out of next to nothing using outright lies, half truths, partial truths, distorted stats and what is essentially a sales pitch masquerading as “information.”

The more we learn how this now-exposed hoax was done, the better we will be able to prevent some other gang of psychos running a similar deception on us in the future.

Some of it has been very sly and here is one little trick that just came more sharply into focus.

1. We have the raw “Covid Death” stats that were desperately inflated by the architects of the hoax to look pretty scary. They are not as scary as the mortality stats of various other bugs and illnesses of course. But they can look scary enough when presented as raw numbers provided those presenting the scary stats make sure they do not mention context: the even more scary stats of other illnesses we’ve lived with for ages without anyone freaking out or “solving the problem” by shutting down the country and ushering in a dictatorship.
2. So we have the stark and misleading numbers with which the media hammers the populace relentlessly – “45000 deaths in the UK!!!” where COVID 19 was mentioned.
3. COVID 19 gets mentioned if the person was deemed to have had it present in their body up to 28 days before  they died. “Present in their body” does not necessarily mean it killed them or even contributed to or hastened their death. It might have done but we don’t really know for sure from the raw stat, especially as the person was very old and/or had lots of other potentially lethal problems going on.
4. But “died with COVID” or “died after testing positive for COVID” IMPLIES but neither states nor proves that COVID contributed to their death. So of the 45000 or whatever COVID-related (whatever that means) deaths, how many can we say for sure were killed by the COVID 19 bug? All of them? Half of them? One in ten of them?  None at all? We don’t know.
5. But that vagueness, the “chaos of information” that has been a hallmark of this fiasco, enables the propagandist to fashion whatever narrative he wishes from the “data”.
6. Then there is the fact that testing is unreliable and gives a high number of false positives so we don’t even know for sure how many of those people who allegedly “died with the virus present in their body” actually had the virus present at all! But if your intention is to create maximum fear and really SELL people on the idea there is an epidemic going on, simply bang out the raw numbers and neglect to qualify them.
7. But, here’s another fascination trick:

Let’s say for the sake of argument that 45000 people died with COVID and pretend that the testing for it is fairly reliable so the 45000 is a pretty accurate figure.

45000 people died of this that and the other thing and COVID19 was present so we are encouraged to assume that COVID killed them.

How do we know COVID was present? Well because either someone tested for it or for some other reason, say a clinical diagnosis based on symptoms.

But WHAT ELSE WAS PRESENT? What other bugs and contributory factors were present that could equally – or even more so – have hastened or caused death ? We are not told. Perhaps nobody knows. We know all about COVID 19 now because it is tested for and everybody is looking for it. But what other bugs might have showed up if they had been tested for?

Were all possible bugs really tested for and only COVID 19 showed up?

Can we conclusively identify COVID19 by symptoms alone when its symptoms are confusingly similar to the symptoms of many other bugs?

Or what other potentially deadly factors (such as the psych meds with which they dose up many of the elderly to take one example) were known to be present but were simply not mentioned?

So we have a sort of informational filter that homes in on COVID19 but ignores other bugs and harmful factors that could be equally or even more deadly.

Crude example:

Imagine there is a series of deaths and everyone is wondering whether they were due to natural causes or there is a serial poisoner on the loose. Then someone points out that it must be Tom because CCTV from the scene of each death show that Tom or someone who looks a lot like Tom was in the area each time. So everyone is sure Tom did it and a great fuss is made about hunting him down. But what is ignored or not spotted because everyone stopped looking once they singled out Tom, is that Dick and Harry – or someone who looks like Dick and someone who looks like Harry – were also in the area at each death.

So Tom could be the killer, so could Dick or Harry or none of them or two or more of them working in collusion.

But someone has a vested interest in fingering Tom and getting everyone all worked up over Tom or selling “anti-Tom protection shields” or something or other so we get the “Tom did it” sales pitch.

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this...

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin