Why the term "Plandemic" best describes COVID-19

You Can't Prove That!

I'm not privy to documents or phone-call recordings of someone being quoted as "OK, now is the time! Let's carry out our plan to release the sars-cov-2 pandemic". While there are lawsuits being taken up against specific individuals that show premeditated planning for this so-called pandemic we're going through, I'm working with a process of logical deduction, where all of the available facts point extremely strongly to an orchestrated plan. And it's good to remember, the devil's in the details. I want to help you see that by believing in the standard narrative, you are actually committing a very strong act of faith. I would say it's likely that you're not aware of many of the facts. If you care about facts then continue to read this article, which is merely an introduction to showing that this global catastrophe seems to have clearly been orchestrated. In this day and age, everyone should be aware that they need to dig deep for themselves if they want to be sure of anything that's reported in the news today.

A Couple Big Holes

The standard narrative is full of holes, literally from the very start. Let's take the idea of zoonoses (making the jump to humans) via the so-called "wet markets". We know at least some of the initial cases in China had no contact whatsoever to these markets. There goes that idea. But also, we have the reality of zoonoses in the natural environment taking decades to evolve to the point where it would attach to human cells to replicate. That process magically happening all of a sudden because of someone coming in contact with it in a market is extremely unlikely. The animal thought to be the origin of the virus, the bat, was reported in a scientific study of the market to not even have been sold there...another strike against the foundation of those who seek to defend the idea of a natural pandemic. They're touting this stuff still like it's an actual explanation for what's going on, it's not. It's disproven nonsense.

A Few "Coincidences" 

Perhaps you haven't heard, but there was some simulating going on the month prior to the first reports of an outbreak in China. This was called Event 201, a pandemic tabletop exercise executed by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security along with the WEF and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They tell us this exercise "did not make a prediction", but instead "modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic", which "included a mock novel coronavirus". That's an insanely wild coincidence if I've ever heard one.

But, we have more coincidences that we're told to just ignore; as if basic reason and deduction are less important than believing uncritical media reporting, which is a good sign that we're being fed what to believe. There was research going on in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), research with coronaviruses, from bats. Bats with SARS-like coronaviruses collected by EcoHealth Alliance, advised by Dr. Scott Dowell, who is also the Deputy Director for Surveillance and Epidemiology at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as the lead of the Gates Foundation's COVID-19 response team, and converses regularly with colleagues in the WHO. This research was a continuation of the research being done in Fort Detrick, in Maryland, part of USAMRIID. David Franz, former commander at Fort Detrick, is also an adviser for EcoHealth. In 2017, Franz visited the Wuhan Institute and outlined “possible joint project ideas”, which included carrying out joint “table top exercises” or simulations of outbreaks, decision-making surrounding “gain-of-function” research, and “overcoming barriers to sharing strain collections and transport of pathogens”.

Making the Leap

Many people don't understand that these bat coronaviruses can't just jump into humans. This process takes time, a lot more time in nature than it does in the lab - many decades more. You see, what labs such as WIV do, is speed up this process for what's called "gain of function" research. They passage the virus, which is growing it in iterations, passing it repeatedly through cell cultures. The cell culture you use while performing this process will eventually allow the virus to become better at attaching to those specific types of cells. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we all know that it has an excellent ability to attach to the human ACE-2 receptors. This cannot happen in nature simply by someone coming into contact with it in a market or in the wild.

What do you suppose the odds are that a virus such as this would be reported to originate in a city that happens to have a high-security lab which does research with these very same viruses? The odds are clearly very high.

A Prescient Warning

Wolfgang Wodarg, a German pulmonary specialist, warned mid-March about the tests that were being used to detect the virus, that they could be used to make it appear there was a pandemic, when in fact you weren't getting test results that showed the proper metric for concern: a virus capable of reproducing, and thus causing disease. Instead, the tests would be unreliable as they return false positives and be meaningless as far as the reality of the spread of the disease. Imagine his shock as recently, on November 7th, the German Senate Department responded "No" to the question of whether or not the PCR tests are capable of distinguishing a virus, or parts of a virus, that are able to reproduce from ones that are not able to reproduce.

How was Wolfgang able to predict this? It turns out he had experience with how these people operated. During the false H1N1 pandemic of 2009 (it was originally claimed to have a fatality rate of 0.1 to 5.1%, but ended up at a mere 0.02%), he attempted to get an investigation into the WHO and its conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies who went on to make upwards of $18 billion from governments who bought large quantities of the rushed vaccine. And not only that, but the WHO changed its definition of "pandemic" to no longer include the requirement of "Severity". This meant that, in principle, every seasonal flu could be labeled a pandemic. And of course, many governments around the world set their policies based on the WHO declaring something a "pandemic".

So back to the tests...this time around, he called out an individual directly related to the situation in Germany. A German virologist named Christian Drosten, who we find out is the single person that the government of Germany consulted regarding the outbreak. submitted a protocol for testing to the WHO in an extremely short time period. This is the current PCR test used worldwide claimed to diagnose infection of SARS-CoV-2. Normally these protocols need to be vetted by a very thorough process, but this one was rushed through, and it has been used ever since for mass testing campaigns. Recently, Michael Yeadon, a former lead scientist for Pfizer, has talked about how these tests are giving as much as 80% false positives.

Putting it all Together

I will note again, this is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a ton of evidence of these groups and individuals being involved in various schemes that benefit tremendously from what is going on right now. 

One of course can argue that none of these prove a Plandemic is actually occurring, but I think it should be obvious there is a major problem with blindly believing the story we've been fed. It's clear to me this was planned, based on the wide body of evidence I've examined. If we learn more that contradicts all this evidence, it won't be so clear, and I will gladly stop using the term "Plandemic". Hopefully, very soon we can actually get to the bottom and source of this nonsense, but as it stands now, when all of the evidence is taken together and integrated, it speaks volumes in support of this so-called pandemic being planned.

Please, I beg you, don't take my word for it, do your own research!! Do not be ignorant of the facts. This is far too important for the future of humanity, given all the attacks we've been seeing around the world on basic freedoms that every sovereign individual deserves to have.

Deregulation and the causes of the 2008-2009 recession

The idea seems straightforward enough:

"The Great Recession has everything to do with deregulation and letting companies do whatever they want in the free market."

It's an interesting premise that seems feasible on the surface. Of course the topic has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum, and from all sorts of perspectives. One would get the impression by a quick Google search that, because literally every article they read assumes, in some form, that deregulation and a "return" to free market principles were the culprit, it simply must be true. As is often the case with popularized explanations of things, upon closer inspection we find the devil's in the details, and things begin to fall apart.
During my search for the candid reality of things, I found all sorts of confusing articles, arguing all sorts of ridiculousness, such as Allen Greenspan and George Bush being advocates of the free market; and that their actions, which were somehow supporting free market principles, were the actual culprit of the crisis; read here if you want to be confused real good by popular economics sophistry. Indeed, policies supported and advocated by Bush and Greenspan were a part of the problem, but perhaps in a different manner than we're commonly led to believe.
One article that I stumbled upon that actually does have great explanatory power is in a blog by Arkady K. here, which I will expound upon a bit. Another great resource for the lay person is a book which I highly recommend by Thomas Woods, called Meltdown. In that book, Woods helps bring a lot of disparate pieces together to clear up the confusion and fill in the gaps, and he does it in a down-to-earth manner -- it's quite refreshing.
After thinking about all these different points of view, I personally think the explanation is fairly straightforward; I'll try and deal with it in a condensed form here.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

This Act is generally cited as the primary culprit (certainly according to Mr. Obama), ushering in deregulation of the subprime mortgage market. One will realize upon closer inspection that, as Arkady points out, the GLB Act "was passed by President Bill Clinton and supported by 155 House Democrats (out of 206) and 38 Democrat Senators (out of 45)." Clinton even said that the Act helped the crisis end as quickly as it did in that it provided a way for the big banks to merge investment and deposit branches into one institution, and at the same time said this deregulation was the cause of the crisis! In fact, many have pointed out that most companies didn't even end up consolidating, or they had already done things to this effect prior to the legislation and no issues were seen to arise from this.
The clear explanation for these contradictory aspects is that it was certainly NOT deregulation on a large scale and leftists suddenly having a change of heart in running to free market principles. But instead, it was more of the same coming from Washington. Namely, it was yet more regulation to protect and further entrench businesses that sought to monopolize the financial industry through the force of government.

So is there anything to back that suspicion besides reasonable guesses? Ron Paul, the most staunch advocate of the free market in Congress at the time, spoke out in a speech in 1999 strongly against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, some of which I've included here:

"The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach. Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth... Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem... The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill."

So you have to ask, was this man speaking what he actually believed? Did he know what he was talking about? If you look at the bill and its results, do they line up with what he says? Absolutely they do. The only other remote explanation in my mind is that it was all an elaborate plan to fool people on all sides, and they all worked together to do it. As crazy as that sounds, the idea that it was meant to actually deregulate and move towards a free market seems crazier given the facts.

So, let's dig in a bit to the actual culprit(s)...

Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac

At the heart of the debacle were two entities, Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac. There are a few things that should be noted about them:

• Both of them enjoyed special privileges through government. Tax and regulatory breaks that other mortgage guarantors did not enjoy.
• They had access in various ways to the US Treasury line of credit, as they were quasi-government agencies.
• Everybody knew that because of their special stance of government favor, they would be bailed out if they failed, thus creating an incentive to deal in risky loans, i.e. a moral hazard.
• Because of these conditions, these entities were allowed to attract more capital than they otherwise deserved had they actually been subjected to market forces.

The Community Reinvestment Act

Under the guise of anti-discrimination in lending, this was quite unabashedly designed to force companies to give mortgages to people that were not at all capable of fulfilling them. This legislation really took hold and had power during Clinton's administration, which lines up well with the timeline where the housing bubble was being built, and certainly wasn't backed down during the Bush administration.

The Federal Reserve

This should be seen as the most important piece to the puzzle. Allen Greenspan, just as he was about to be replaced, led the Federal Reserve to undertake a massive increase in the amount of credit available to the market by creating negative interest rates. This credit channeled in a large way into the mortgage sectors, encouraging credit to be allocated toward a market that wasn't ready to support that investment, i.e. it encouraged malinvestment, waste. Combine this with mandates from Congress under the guise of Affordable Housing (houses for everyone!) for Fannie and Freddie to reach certain lending quotas, as they had 65% of the market share, they set the lending standards in the industry, and thus the bubble must inevitably form. As it has done time and time again throughout its sorry 100-year existence, the Federal Reserve, in collaboration with Congress, fostered a bubble which was destined to burst.

Summary

There's a lot of theories that have been thrust into the public's view that attempt to explain the causes of the so-called "Great Recession", and they all claim the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amounted to deregulation, which then led to the terrible banking practices, predatory lending and the whole works. Nobody can actually support this claim with evidence, only misdirection and confusion. What we can factually observe is the fed's policies and their effects on the economy as credit is made artificially cheap, and the results of arbitrarily, altruistic, housing quotas mandated by Congress, and the clearly cozy relationship the certain institutions have with government, as they are bailed out, as if that wouldn't make the situation worse!

It's interesting to me how you can find a different article geared toward a different audience, with different political beliefs, and the explanation will be the same -- too much freedom, deregulation, and unchecked capitalism! Anytime one deals with economic issues, they have to be certain to dig for the facts, because somebody somewhere will want to create a popular belief for the masses to help entrench their destructive, self-serving policies...as always, follow the money!