Grand conspiracy theories/claims/ideology

Post Reply New Topic

This is one conspiracy theory I still believe in; of the 3 people who were assassinated in the 60s (JFK, Bobby Kennedy & MLK) JFK was very anti-communist but was against escalation of the vietnam war, Bobby Kennedy and MLK were openly anti vietnam war. The theory was that there was a group comprised of people and companies that advocated a direct conflict with communist insurgency and stood to gain monetarily by supplying a military engaged in a war (hence the old adage that war is good for business) that had them killed.

That's a conspiracy theory, but not necessarily what I would call a "grand conspiracy theory." The latter involves an alleged much older, longer-lived organized elite group that masterminds a wide variety of world events, including a wide variety of (sometimes mutually-opposing) political and social trends, all toward some hidden evil end -- usually not just a goal so simple and mundane as the financial gain of some particular industry.

Well-known examples of grand conspiracy theories include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the John Birch Society's (and later) claims about "the Illuminati." The best-known recent example is QAnon.

Oppenheimer family was very rich from DE beers diamond mine in South Africa, such a rich family had much wealth and influence but perhaps not illuminati.
Such as hidden myth that UK was and still is destroying rainforests in Madagascar and Congo.
Nice.

Of course, rich folks have much more influence than everybody else. And, of course, there are indeed groups of rich people who hang out together and push agendas that their particular group agrees on. And there are indeed rich folks who commit crimes, such as under-age sex trafficking, and are able to get away with these crimes far longer than ordinary folks could.

But grand conspiracy theories allege far more than just the above.

As I wrote in the first post in this thread:

The evidence I’ve seen indicates that the US DoD were basically running the pandemic response (in the US and quite likely in allied countries too), not merely giving logistical support, and that it was the DoD’s idea to use mRNA vaccines, and that Pfizer and Moderna were just acting as fronts.

The world-renowned cardiologist Peter McCullough gave a talk in which he explained that DARPA had drawn up plans back in 2011 that when the next ‘global pandemic’ occurred, they’d combat it using mRNA vaccines. DARPA explained this in a booklet that is still available online here: https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/ADEPT ... eFINAL.pdf

More recently, the Dutch Health Minister Fleur Agema revealed that during the pandemic response in her country, they were basically taking orders from NATO. By the way, this might help explain why the pandemic response in Sweden (not a NATO country at the time) was so different to other countries in Western Europe.

Also recently, there has been a huge leak of internal emails and documents from the RKI (Robert Koch Institute) in Germany. This leak has recently been admitted as evidence in a court case, and it has also caused Health Minister Lauterbach to reverse his previous position and admit that covid experts in Germany were politically influenced. See https://rumble.com/v5nwqzt-the-rki-leak ... -scam.html

One interesting quote from the leak from September 2020 said that “an approval of the mRNA vaccine by the FDA before US elections is not desirable. The same holds true for European authorities”.

So, basically, the ‘powers that be’ decided very early on in the pandemic that they were going to embark on a mass vaccination campaign, and they weren’t going to let anything stand in their way (after which they would no doubt pump out propaganda about how the vaccines had saved us all). Yet at the same time, they were prepared to delay the vaccine rollout until after the US elections, which is just further evidence that the ‘pandemic response’ was about politics and not about health.



There are loads of medical scientists and doctors who have been trying to inform people during the past 3 or 4 years that almost everything about the official covid narrative was nonsense (this includes people who initially believed ‘the narrative’ until the evidence against it became too much or ignore). Although these people are still in the minority, I am actually more inclined to believe these people since firstly, there ARE a lot of them, and secondly, these people have risked media vilification, censorship, and harm to their careers and livelihoods for speaking out. In addition, some of what these people have been saying chimes with my own personal observations.

Of course, if you haven’t properly looked into any of this, you might think that all ‘covid narrative scepticism’ originates with the so-called ’12 covid misinformation superspreaders’ (including RFK Jr) plus a few anonymous people on Bitchute talking about ‘nanobots’.

Most of the below applies both to the UK and to the US.

1. In the UK, as in the US, in March 2020, the pandemic preparation plans that had been in place for years were scrapped in favour of total lockdowns. The Great Barrington Declaration (in which several medical professionals advised against lockdowns) was ignore. Ss the first lockdown was starting, the public was told that it would only last a few weeks – which soon turned out to be rubbish.

2. Then there were claims made my coroners, nurses and concerned relatives that some of the recently deceased were being counted as ‘covid deaths’ when they clearly were not. I actually observed this happen with someone I knew.

3. Then there were claims made by whistleblowers that large numbers of covid deaths in hospitals and care homes were actually being caused by hospital protocols (midazolam plus morphine in the UK, remdesivir in the US, and ventilators in both countries).

4. Then, after the initial spike in covid deaths (that had been over-inflated as explained above), the PCR test for covid was introduced, and the public was kept fearful with daily updates about the number of ‘covid cases’ nationwide. This is despite the fact that the tests were (in an unprecedented move) being routinely given to people without any symptoms, and that a positive PCR test in itself says nothing about whether or not a person is ill (as Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique, himself once explained).

5. Meanwhile, early treatments were being suppressed for people who actually did get ill with covid. Yes, this included ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. No, ivermectin is not just a ‘horse dewormer’. It’s a Nobel Prize winning multi-purpose drug with a proven safety record that had been approved for use for humans years earlier. Usually, doctors in the US would be allowed to try using such a provably safe drug to treat a condition in the absence of any alternatives. But no, ivermectin had to be attacked and discredited as a treatment so that Emergency Use Authorisation for the vaccines could be rushed through.

6. So, in late 2020 / early 2021, we were told that vaccines were “our only way out of the pandemic”, and that everyone had to get vaccinated. This was despite the fact that the majority of people had probably already been infected and gained natural immunity (at least against the strain the vaccine supposedly protected against). But this concept that was just ignored.

7. Then, soon after the vaccines were administered, it became clear to people they didn’t stop people catching covid. The authorities even admitted they likely didn’t stop people spreading it either. Over time, reports in the media about the Pfizer vaccine went from claiming it was about 95% effective until eventually the estimate dropped down to about 30%.

8. Also, following the introduction of the vaccines, insurance companies report a large uptick in death and disability in 2021 and 2022 among working age people (not even talking about elderly people now). Meanwhile, the media pump out loads of articles about all the ridiculous things that can supposedly cause heart attacks (like taking paracetamol, drinking sports drinks, and shoveling snow – anything but the covid vaccines).



Yes, I am aware that myocarditis can be a symptom of covid and of the common cold.

But when you say that myocarditis is “much more likely to be a symptom of COVID-19 itself” than a side-effect of the vaccine, you are just assuming that the theory of vaccines matches the reality without looking beyond CDC propaganda.

Even a layperson who looks into how covid mRNA vaccines work can see that what they do is so far removed from mimicking a viral respiratory infection that it’s ridiculous. And even a layperson who looks into all this can see that using mRNA technology for any sort of vaccine is dangerous.

Here is a quote from leading British cardiologist Aseem Malhotra (from a podcast interview). By the way, he is someone who initially supported mass covid vaccination until the evidence of vaccine harms became too strong to ignore.

The reality is this in my whole career looking at all of the drugs and knowing about many different drugs that are prescribed I've never seen something when you look at the data which has such poor effectiveness and such unprecedented harms … just one bit of data alone should be enough to people to to stop and think oh my God this is just unbelievable … the journal vaccine peer review… published a reanalysis of Pfizer and MNA original double blinded randomized control trials … done by independent researchers Joseph Fraiman from Louisiana (he's an ER doctor) clinical data scientist associate … Peter Doshi, Robert Kaplan from Stanford … and what they found was this … around the world you are more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from taking the vaccine hospitalization disability life-changing event then you were to be hospitalized with covid so what that means is it's highly likely this vaccine mRNA vaccine should never have been approved for a single human in the first place … and that rate of serious Adverse Events is one in 800 … so the question now [is] what is your individual benefit in absolute terms … so there's a table … so the UK government, they released information looking at per million people vaccinated versus per million people unvaccinated by age group okay during the Omicron strain right so this is UK government data so table for it says numbers needed to vaccinate for prevention of severe hospitalization okay from two of Pfiser so if you look at the First Column Joe if you're 70 you have to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one person being hospitalized with severe covid if you're 60 5,700 you start getting lower age groups 30 87,00 for example if you're 20 to 29 over 100 well over 100,000 people. I mean this efficacy level Effectiveness level … if it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

Anyway, I've spent enough time writing this post that I don't really have time to dig out any more links right now. I know there are certain people on here who are almost incapable of questioning an establishment narrative about anything, so I'm not really bothered if I change their minds or not. To people who want to learn more, like I say, there are loads of doctors and other professionals online who talk about this stuff every week, and they often quote and retweet each other - now that the censorship has eased up, you can find a lot of these people on twitter (or substack, or telegram). I've seen so many of these doctors and scientists by now trying to get the message out that somehow I don't think they're all just attention-seekers, or that they've all put their careers at risk for some unspecified 'grift' - but I'm sure there are people on here who will claim to know better.

Is it the Jews? A lot of these conspiracy theories are antisemitic. They might not outright name the Jews but they'll implicate the Jews via dog whistling. They might use terms such as "international banking".

I think it's fear of the outsider. The thought that if they're not loyal to our group they must put their own group ahead of our group and that makes them traitors, or so people think.

Some people think that Jews will put their Judaism ahead of the country they live in and that makes them traitors. Some people think that Catholics will put the Pope ahead of the country they live in and that makes them traitors.

These same people who think other religious groups are traitors will also say they are loyal to God, family and country, in that order. They give themselves a free pass to put their own God ahead of country because they are in the majority religion. But any other religious groups saying they put their allegiance to God ahead of their allegiance to their country are viewed as traitors.

Based on some quick web research just now, it does appear that the US Department of Defense has been a major funder of vaccine research for a very long time, not just for the CoViD vaccines. According to Military vaccines in today’s environment by Connie S Schmaljohn, Leonard A Smith, and Arthur M Friedlander, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, published back in August 2012, on the website of the National Library of Medicine:


At first glance it seemed odd to me that the DoD would have such a major role in a program that affects civilians as much as it affects military personnel. However, on further reflection, I realize that vaccine research is far from the only such program. For example, before the Department of Education was created, student loans were managed by the DoD.

My guess is that this is an artifact of how US politics works. Because the DoD has a very large discretionary budget, it's probably a lot easier for a US President to get things funded through the DoD than through any civilian agency. All the more so is this likely to be true when something needs to be massively funded in a big hurry, such as new vaccines against a new contagious disease.

You, on the other hand, seem to hinting that the DoD's involvement is a sign of something more sinister. What do you believe in this regard?


Was this just "the DoD's idea," or did it reflect a general consensus among vaccine experts that mRNA was a promising new technology that ought to be developed the next time massive funding was available for vaccine research?

Most likely the latter, judging by The Long History of mRNA Vaccines on the website of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In any case, mRNA vaccines weren't the only ones that got research funding.


What do you mean by "fronts"? Just being government contractors, or something else?


Link doesn't work. Here it is via the Wayback Machine (PDF).


It seems to me that the question of vaccine safety and effectiveness is a separate matter from the more general question which pandemic response measures were or were not necessary before the vaccines were developed. Be that as it may, here is the Wikipedia article on Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic.


Well, that's one way to interpret it. Depending on the exact context, "an approval of the mRNA vaccine by the FDA before US elections is not desirable" could mean either of the following two very different things:

1) "An approval of the mRNA vaccine by the FDA before US elections is specifically undesirable, and we should slow things down a bit just for that reason,"

OR

2) "It is not desirable to cut corners just to meet Trump's politically-motivated goal of getting an mRNA vaccine approved before the US election."

We aren't given enough context to judge which of those two meanings is in fact more likely. But I do recall there being some criticism of Trump, back in 2020, for trying to pressure vaccine researchers and the FDA to get a vaccine ready for approval before the election, for obvious political reasons on his own behalf.


These are not mutually exclusive. In just about any organized human endeavor, there will be politics of one kind or another. But this, in itself, does not negate the endeavor's larger overarching need or goal.

In my next post I will respond to some of your claims about the pandemic response in general, apart from the vaccines.

Such as?


If I recall correctly, there were plans that had been in place for years that might have enabled the COVID-19 pandemic to be nipped in the bud (e.g. restrictions on travel to/from the first affected country, in this case China), but those plans were ignored by Trump, who was initially more worried about causing a "panic" than about a possible pandemic. Lockdowns were then deemed necessary after hospitals became overwhelmed with COVID cases. Note that COVID-19 got the "19" in its name from the fact that it was first identified in 2019, but lockdown measures did not begin (at least here in the U.S.A.) until March 2020. Less extreme measures might have been adequate had they begun to be implemented a few months earlier, as soon as COVID-19 was first noticed.

So the earlier pandemic preparation plans weren't "scrapped in favour of total lockdowns." They were initially scrapped (by Trump) in favor of doing nothing. Then, because initially doing nothing resulted in disaster, lockdowns were seen as the only option.

Looking now at the Wikipedia article U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, I see that travel restrictions were implemented at the end of January 2020 -- whereas they could have been implemented earlier in that month, had Trump been more on the ball at that time. Had the travel restrictions been implemented earlier, the March 2020 lockdowns could likely have been avoided or at least postponed.


Here is the Wikipedia article on the Great Barrington Declaration.

Even if some of the lockdown measures were excessive, it seems obvious to me that the "Great Barrington Declaration" goes way too far in the opposite direction, and was sponsored by a libertarian group with an obvious bias.


What did you observe, specifically?


Regarding ventilators, see Viral headline twists study about ventilators and COVID-19 deaths by Angelo Fichera, AP, May 19, 2023:


Back to your post:


There were many people who didn't have symptoms but were nonetheless contagious. That was the point, if I recall correctly.


There are different formulations of Ivermectin for humans and for non-human animals. "Horse de-wormer" is one of the formulations.

The idea that Ivermectin is JUST a "horse de-wormer" looks to me like an error in mass media reporting. This error was probably an oversimplification of the reality that some folks, without a doctor's prescriptions for human Ivermectin, were helping themselves to a horse version of Ivermectin, with harmful results. (See the FDA's statement on Ivermectin and COVID-19.)


Here in the U.S.A., doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs for "off-label" uses, and some doctors DID prescribe Ivermectin for COVID. I know someone who received an Ivermectin prescription for COVID. But, apparently, most controlled tests did not show it to be an effective treatment for COVID.

Back to the vaccines:

But they did prevent the most severe and life-threatening manifestations of COVID.


Can you provide a source for this claim?


Likely due to COVID itself, not the vaccines.

When the vaccines first became available, most working-age people were not allowed to get them. At least here in the U.S.A., the vaccines were initially reserved for the most vulnerable people, such as the elderly, and there were long waiting lists. Also, by 2021, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories were already running rampant, so a lot of working-age people didn't get vaccinated even when they finally could. So there were still a lot of unvaccinated working-age people in 2021.

See Insurance executive says death rates among working-age people up 40 percent, January 3, 2022. Note that COVID itself is blamed.


I don't see their workings as intrinsically "ridiculous," just less direct than what ordinary vaccines do.


I can understand being wary of mRNA vaccines, simply because they are such a NEW technology that we don't yet know what the longterm side effects might be, if any. But I see no reason to assume that they will necessarily turn out more dangerous than other vaccines.


I'll look into the above claims further.

In the meantime, I will note that Aseem Malhotra is a cardiologist with generally unorthodox views on other topics besides just COVID, according to the Wikipedia article about him. (For example, he thinks eating lots of saturated fats is A-OK.)

Thank you for taking the time to host this thread Mona.

Sometimes Jews, sometimes other religious minorities, sometimes space aliens.

But regardless of which specific religious minorities are identified, the conspiracy theories typically mention some of the same villains, e.g. the Rothschilds, most of whom are/were Jewish.


Yep. "International banking" conspiracy theories are often intertwined with anti-Jewish conspiracy claims.


Yep.

Awe conspirascies ...well guess Trumps is the perfect conspirascy theory ,..Who woulda expected a tried felon, to be able to get into the Presidential office. Who woulda thought it ?
The USA is a supporter of a Genocidal Meglomaniac in the MiddleEast ?What.? Iran,hmm.. used to be ,,Syria..? used to be ... NAW. nobody should be able to say that.! Who would support such a thing .
Who would of believed that a few years ago ? Buncha crazy conspirascy nuts.