by Jon Rappoport<\/p>\n
In my ongoing coverage of the \u201cepidemic\u201d (archive here<\/a>), I\u2019ve written about the covert-operation aspect of the brutal game.<\/p>\n I want to add a few notes.<\/p>\n By its very nature, a covert op is meant to CONCEAL its true goals and details and players, so it\u2019s no surprise we have unanswered questions. Rushing to supply all the answers in five minutes is a futile exercise.<\/p>\n A covert op can be invented and planned from the get-go; or players, seeing an event unfold, can jump onboard in mid-stream, take control, and use the event to launch an operation.<\/p>\n A covert op has cover stories and false trails. These are standard in the intelligence business.<\/p>\n A cover story is designed to divert attention from what is actually going on. It is basically a false picture floated to obscure the truth. The intent is: get people dividing into camps and arguing with each other about VARIATIONS of the cover story\u2014thus taking them further from the hidden facts and motives.<\/p>\n In this case, the cover story would be: a contagious virus jumped species in China and started harming and killing people; it\u2019s spread.<\/p>\n People began taking sides: the contagious coronavirus is a natural microbe; it\u2019s a leak from a biowar lab; it was weaponized in a lab and intentionally released; it\u2019s rather harmless for the most part; it\u2019s deadly; its effects are somehow magnified by interacting with chemtrails; because people\u00a0are dying<\/em>, the virus must be the cause, etc.<\/p>\n Once people have divided into camps, the covert operators can twist several of these cover-story variations, thus creating false trails, down which people can travel, without ever reaching an end.<\/p>\n For example, a loose study might appear \u201cwhich proves the coronavirus is a bioweapon.\u201d If you read the study carefully, though, you realize the authors aren\u2019t claiming the virus has been weaponized. Further, the study authors are saying the virus has a peculiarity which MIGHT mean THIS or COULD mean THAT or POSSIBLY IMPLIES something else. And there appear to be no other studies which confirm any of these equivocal findings.<\/p>\n But within an hour of the study being published, fifty thousand people on the Web are circulating this \u201cproof of weaponization.\u201d<\/p>\n In any so-called epidemic, you will see some ex-military or ex-intelligence spook appear out of nowhere with \u201cexpert insider testimony\u201d about the virus. He \u201cknows it\u2019s a weapon.\u201d Therefore, it must be.<\/p>\n Likewise, other authority figures will show up to capture audiences with unproven revelations about the \u201cbioweapon virus,\u201d or \u201cthe leak of the virus from a lab,\u201d or the \u201ctheft of the virus.\u201d Their audience, having rejected conventional media and government authorities, is looking for alternative substitutes. And they\u2019ll get substitutes.<\/p>\n Notice that, in all these insider pronouncements, whatever they are, there is a re-enforcement of the basic idea that THE VIRUS is the cause of the \u201cepidemic.\u201d BUT REMEMBER, \u201cTHE VIRUS\u201d IS THE BASIC COVER STORY. Planners of a covert op want people to buy the basic cover any which way.<\/p>\n To illustrate these points, imagine that, in an area of forest 30 miles from a town, people discover a large patch of dead trees. Some have fallen over. Others, leafless and gray, are still standing. At first, no one takes action. Then, it\u2019s obvious the patch is growing larger. More trees are falling down. More branches and leaves are drying up and dropping on the ground.<\/p>\n The town newspaper, aided by pronouncements from local officials, runs a story about a fire. There was a fire in that part of the forest. It was \u201cso severe and hot, its effects are still being felt.\u201d NOW, people begin arguing about the cause of the fire. It was a lightning hit. Someone set a blaze, using flammable liquid that burned at an exceptionally high temperature. Drug dealers fought with one another and burned up the drugs. A sinister creature, half-animal, half-human, rumored to live in the woods, set the fire. ET aliens set the blaze. Their small ship crashed and burned.<\/p>\n The fire is the cover story. People are arguing about variations of the basic cover. Actually, six months ago, a town firm that secretly sells a dangerous and illegal pesticide, believing they were about to get busted, sent employees with drums of the poison into the forest to dump them. That\u2019s what happened. But the cover story is now so ingrained in minds, few people will consider there was no fire\u2026THERE HAD TO BE A FIRE.<\/p>\n After having researched and written about epidemic duds (SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola, Zika, etc.) for many years, I\u2019ve taken a different approach.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve asked more BASIC questions at every turn.<\/p>\n If public health officials and governments announce an outbreak and a virus, I ask, \u201cHow did they discover the new virus?\u201d That\u2019s a reasonable inquiry. \u201cDid they really find and isolate a new virus?\u201d \u201cWhat procedures did they use for the job?\u201d \u201cAre those procedures accurate and valid?\u201d \u201cDid the scientists who rushed to the outbreak-locale to take tissue samples\u2014are these the CDC or World Health Organization virus hunters who always find a new virus, even if, at the designated location, an industrial corporation is releasing torrents of polluted poison into the ground and the water?<\/p>\n Which leads me to my next basic question: assuming some harm is being visited on people, are there clear causes that have nothing to do with a virus, causes that would account for the profile of harm that has been announced? And if so, who would benefit from hiding these other clear causes by using the cover story of a virus? Corporations, governments? Who would benefit, on the back end, from the virus cover story? Drug companies? Vaccine companies?<\/p>\n I ask: how many cases of the \u201cepidemic\u201d have been announced? How many deaths? Exactly how are these cases being identified and counted? What diagnostic tests are being done? Are the tests accurate and valid? Again, this is a reasonable inquiry. If the authorities are claiming a certain number of people are being harmed, I want to find out HOW these \u201cexperts\u201d are coming to that conclusion.<\/p>\n I ask: what is the list of symptoms being attributed to the \u201cepidemic illness?\u201d Are these symptoms so generalized they already fit large numbers of people without the claim that the cause is a new virus? For example, are typical flu-like symptoms, which apply to millions of people, suddenly being shifted over and counted as cases of the \u201cnew epidemic?\u201d<\/p>\n I ask: in all modern epidemics, are there common, long-accepted medical tests and procedures which are arbitrary and unproven, which should be openly debated, but aren\u2019t? Is the story of a virus used to hide corporate and government crimes?<\/p>\n There are other questions I ask, but you get the idea. I go under the cover story of the moment and look for more fundamental lies and truths. I hit the \u201cstress points\u201d of the cover story.<\/p>\n These basic questions have generated all my previous articles on the current \u201ccoronavirus crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n I keep asking, looking, and answering.<\/p>\n If I find out, in asking and answering these questions that, yes, questionable procedures have been used in discovering the new virus in the first place; unworkable, dubious, and worthless tests have been used to diagnose and label patients with the epidemic disease; cases are undoubtedly \u201cimported\u201d from traditional diseases, in order to falsely inflate the number of cases in the epidemic; causes of illness, other than the virus, are present in an area where the epidemic started; the epidemic illness is a familiar generalized list of symptoms which are present in millions of people\u2014if I find out all these things, then the \u201cnew epidemic\u201d with a new viral cause is a con job.<\/p>\n If, after stripping away the number of people claimed to be \u201cepidemic cases\u201d who most likely aren\u2019t, I find that the true number of cases appears to be small, then there is no epidemic.<\/p>\n If the number of cases still seems to be high, then I look deeper into non-viral causes which are currently operating, and influencing illness.<\/p>\n For my findings on this \u201ccoronavirus epidemic,\u201d I suggest going back and reading all my articles in this ongoing series (archive here<\/a>).<\/p>\n For those who have been with me from the beginning, I thank you for your support and interest.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll close this piece with an example. In 2003, there was another coronavirus epidemic: SARS. Its symptoms were basic flu with, in some cases, acute respiratory problems.<\/p>\n As I\u2019ve detailed, a Canadian biologist, Frank Plummer, working for the World Health Organization, spoke frankly to the press, saying the number of SARS patients with the coronavirus was fewer and fewer. In fact, it was approaching zero. This, obviously, cut the legs out from under the claim that SARS was a new disease caused by a new coronavirus.<\/p>\n