“Pseudopandemic”: over-the-top conspiracy theory, or dangerously real?


British author Iain Davis has written a book titled “Pseudopandemic: New Normal Technocracy“.

The author’s claims about how COVID-19 has been used to undermine and reshape society are admittedly extreme, but he builds a strong case from his perspective.  I have little doubt that the medical and mortality statistics he cites early in the book are probably correct.  They can be fact-checked easily enough, and the samples I checked were accurate.  As for his “globalist conspiracy” claims, I used to think that sort of thing was absolute nonsense.  However, looking at the brouhaha over the so-called “Delta Variant” of COVID-19, and the ongoing attempts to engineer global taxation levels, and impose other totalitarian proposals on us such as the so-called “Great Reset” as a direct consequence of the pandemic, I’m forced to ask myself whether he may have a point.  Yes, his views are extreme, and I don’t accept them blindly;  but they’ve sure made me think hard.

To accompany the launch of the book a few days ago, the author wrote an article for Off-Guardian in which he summarized his claims.

Covid 19 was and is a pseudopandemic. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza.

The pseudopandemic was a psychological operation (psy-op) designed to terrorise the public. The objective was to accustom the people to draconian system of government oppression by familiarising them with the mechanisms of a biosecurity state.

The pseudopandemic was based upon an influenza like illness which, regardless of its origin, was not and is not a disease which can legitimately be considered the cause of a “pandemic.” The only way it could ever be described as such was by the removal of any reference to mortality from the World Health Organisation’s definition.

COVID 19 is a disease which has a mortality age distribution profile indistinguishable from standard mortality. Unlike influenza, which disproportionately impacts the young, in terms of threat to life, COVID 19 was and is a wholly unremarkable illness.

Were it not for political theatrics and mainstream media propaganda, which began in China, no one, outside of the medical profession and COVID 19 sufferers, would have remarked on this disease.

The illusion of overwhelmed health services was created by massively reducing their capacity and staffing levels while simultaneously reorienting healthcare to treat everyone who presented with a respiratory illness as viral plague carriers.

In reality the pseudopandemic saw unusually low levels of hospital bed occupancy. However, due to the additional policies and procedures heaped upon them, healthcare services were thrown into into disarray.

This was combined with the use of tests, incapable of diagnosing anything, as proof of a COVID 19 “case.” This enabled governments around the world to make absurd claims about the threat level. They relied upon fake science and junk data throughout. As symptomatic illness and resultant disease mortality was relatively low, they asserted that people without any signs of illness (the asymptomatic) were spreading the contagion.

This was abject nonsense. There was no evidence that the asymptomatic infected anyone. Those at risk of severe illness were the small minority of people who already had serious comorbidities, often due to their age.

The mass house arrests (lockdowns) and other measures, such as wearing face masks, were then used to increase the infection risk, to reduce broad levels of population immunity and give the false impression of an extraordinary public health threat. The removal of health care for every other disease, including cancer and ischaemic heart disease, coupled with the health costs of increasing deprivation and immunosuppressant policies, were then exploited to bolster the illusion of a pandemic.

This does not mean that COVID 19 didn’t kill people but those who died of the disease were a small percentage of the total numbers claimed. COVID 19 had no discernible impact upon all-cause mortality … mortality in 2020 was still only the 9th highest in the first two decades of the 21st century and one of the lowest age-standardised mortality rates in the last 50 years.

. . .

For the core conspirators of the pseudopandemic this is the realisation of their long held dream of global governance. They are steeped in the mythology of eugenics and population control. Once they have total control of the global commons they will no longer need us as consumers and are intent upon significant population reduction.

As insane as this all sounds the evidence, explored in Pseudopandemic, is overwhelming. We are facing global neofeudalism unless we act now. Herein lies our hope.

The core conspirators have no real power. It is an illusion that they are desperate to maintain. They invest billions in propaganda, hybrid warfare and security systems because they are terrified that we will realise what they are doing.

Their plan can only succeed if we believe their lies and comply with their orders. If we don’t there is nothing they can do about it.

There’s more at the link.

I highly recommend that you read Mr. Davis’ article in full.  His claims sound over-the-top to those who’ve traditionally trusted leaders to do what’s right for their countries.  However, when examined in the context of all we’ve experienced over the past eighteen months or so, they’re a lot more thought-provoking.  What’s more, when similar claims are dismissed out-of-hand as conspiracy theories or crackpot nuttiness by the powers that be – the very powers that are openly exploiting COVID-19 as a tool to scare people into obedience – I’m forced to ask why those powers are refusing to confront such claims, rather than ignore them.  It should be easy enough to debunk them if they’re false, but no evidence has been offered to do so.

I’m not saying Mr. Davis is right or wrong, but he’s made a strong enough case to make me think.  We should all do that anyway.  As the old idiom tells us, “Forewarned is forearmed” – and Mr. Davis provides what I think are several useful warnings, no matter what our perspective on the pandemic may be.

While on that subject, Karl Denninger warns us that the impact on health care costs imposed by side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination program may be grotesquely distorted.

Wild increases in premiums.

These are the “submitted rates” and undoubtedly will face major pushback from state regulators, but the bottom line is that when costs go up so does the price of “insurance.”

Now remember folks that Covid-19 almost always kills older people who are on Medicare, therefore it could not impact Obamacare since those who got hammered were not on Obamacare; they were on Medicare.

. . .

I only have a few data points from a few states thus far but the ones I have…. oh boy, are they doozies.

Still clinging to “it’ll be ok and it won’t get me” or “the shots very, very rarely produce problems; they’re very safe” eh?  Go argue with the insurance company actuaries; they have the data on every person who has one of their policies, they have run the data, and they say you and the REEEEEEEing Karens with your claims of “rare” events are all 100% full of crap; the side effects are not rare, they are in fact extremely serious, common and expensive.

Again, more at the link.

If Mr. Denninger’s information is correct, it adds greater weight to Mr. Davis’ theories, in that it forces us into greater reliance on the state to provide care that would otherwise be unaffordable – and thereby affords the state greater leverage to force us to obey its edicts, or else.

Food for thought indeed!



  1. The VAERS data currently show about 6,000 deaths from Covid 19 vaccinations. The European Union reporting system shows 15,000 or more deaths from the vaccines(s). Yet, very little is mentioned about this, and I suspect those numbers are under reported.
    Let's see what impact this all has on insurance providers rates, as if they were going to ever go down.

  2. Got as far as the second line before he obviously and publicly lost his grip on reality:

    "Covid 19 was and is a pseudopandemic. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza."

    Um, no, Cupcake.

    The mortality on coronavirus since EVER, going back long before coronatardation on all sides, is a CFR of 1-5%. You could look it up.*

    FTR, that's 10-50 times worse than annual flu, which has a CFR of O.1%, also since ever.
    For Common Core grads, 10-50 deaths per thousand is worse than 1 death per thousand.

    Anyone too retarded to grasp such basic mathematics is talking out his fourth point of contact, because that's where his head is.

    Nothing further from him need be referenced until he can correct the underlying recto-cranial impaction.

    The rest can be ascribed to depending on blind hogs to find your acorns.

    *(When last I looked, the CFR for COVID-19 in the U.S. ranged from an extreme low outlier of 0.5% in Hawaii, to highs of 2.8% in NYFS and 2.9% in New Jersey. We only looked at 26 states or so out of 50 + DC for that range. The 24 states we didn't look at were between those two points. IOW, within spitting distance of right down the fairway on the 3% CFR we assumed for this from the outset, and between 5 and 29 times worse than "just the flu, bro". Anyone who can't process 3rd and 4th grade math of that type is far too stupid to pay any further attention to, on matters far beyond their grasp, as a general principle. 80-IQ morons deserve to be ignored, and this clown is over-qualified for that category. Once again, coronatardation underlines the dearth of productive educational enterprises in the Anglosphere, going back half a century.)

  3. Thank you for an excellent, even-handed, and insightful review of this book. Despite one commenter's undisguised anger and ad hominems, I am going to take the time to read/research the material/facts in Mr. Davis' book.

  4. @ Aesop:

    "Covid 19 was and is a pseudopandemic. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza."

    Um, no, Cupcake.

    The mortality on coronavirus since EVER, going back long before coronatardation on all sides, is a CFR of 1-5%. You could look it up.*

    Judging from the context he is talking about the mortality in the context of a nation, not the mortality in the context of infected patients.

    For Germany the RKI (Robert-Koch-Institut) said exactly that way back in march 2021 – that on a national level the pandemic was indistinguishable from a strong flu season.

    It's also hard to compare deaths between the two, as it is well known that nearly every "positive" (not even infected) person who died was counted as a covid-death even if there weren't any symptoms.

    A flu death, on the other hand, mostly is only declared after there are symptoms and I never heard of someone being TESTED for the flu (don't say it never happened, but it seems extremely rare).

  5. I sort of echo Aesop – 10-50 times worse than the low mortality flu.

    " It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza." Exaggeration is not the same as gross exaggeration.

    30 times worse than the flu is bad. Maybe "very bad" (what's the diff?). But not really "crisis bad", as the fear-mongers claim.

    I'd say less than 1% chance of death for 50 year olds, or 10 year olds, is less than a crisis. (10 in a thousand). For Covid, the big risks were over 65, with co-morbidity, especially obesity. Maybe low Vitamin D.

    We actually don't have good words, terms, or analogous thoughts to use in thinking about it.

    The govt response was worse than the disease. We don't have good words for that, either.

  6. While I suspect he is exaggerating in some of his points, the problem with the whole situation is that we don't know – there have been too many lies by those in authority and too little reliable information released to be sure of anything about this situation, except that we can't trust those who claim authority… if their intent was to accumulate power and get people to give them control, they went about this exactly wrong because the people they convinced to follow them were mostly people who would have already followed them…

  7. @tiredWeasel

    "Judging from the context he is talking about the mortality in the context of a nation, not the mortality in the context of infected patients."

    Then he's even stupider, because he's saying that since it only ever spread to 10% or less of the population, 90% of the people who never caught it went unharmed by it.
    Well, DUH.

    Just spitballing here, but pretty much 100% of the people who never fired a shotgun into their heads didn't die from sudden brain-splatter either.

    What he's doing then, "in context", is saying that pointing a loaded shotgun at your head and pulling the trigger is relatively harmless.

    I repeat: 80-IQ moron, wall-to-wall, top-to-bottom.
    If that level of gob-smacking idiocy is what anyone is hanging their safety on, they deserve what they get, and get it they will.

    None of that makes COVID anything like smallpox, or God forbid Ebola et al, nor does it necessarily mean that TPTB did not use a genuine medical crisis to bootstrap themselves into more tyranny and less freedom, because that's what they do, every time they get the chance.

    Bearing in mind these are the same people that try to turn drug war murders by gang criminals into a reason to keep law-abiding people from buying guns, why should anyone be shocked or surprised at that??

    But going the extra mile past common sense would be saying that guns are inherently harmless.

    In context or not, nothing in creation excuses such a fundamentally retarded outlook on basic scientific facts, on a level of understanding that would be embarrassing even for a second-grader.

    There's simply no excuse for being that bag-of-hammers stupid, other than traumatic brain injury with a literal loss of grey matter, or congenital mental retardation.

    Short of psychotic sociopathy, those are the only two exculpatory explanations one can make for his statements.

  8.         The problem with books and articles like this are that they frequently conflate multiple questions.  I've started calling this Unintentional Intellectual Bait and Switch.

            A good example, historically, is the question "Were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Soviet spies?"  If you go back and read books arguing their innocence, the argument frequently veers away from whether Julius was passing classified evidence to the Soviets to what U.S. foreign policy towards the Soviets should have been.  An even worse example is the question of whether FDR knew of the pending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Typical books on the subjects are full of arguments that have no relationship whatsoever to the question "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"  If you stick to that subject, you end up with not very long articles.

            A contemporary example is the claim that the Revolution was largely motivated by a fear that Britain was going to abolish slavery, so the slaveholders pushed for independence to protect slavery.  In the arguments I've seen pushing this subject, I've never come across a primary source expressing a fear that Britain was going to abolish slavery throughout the Empire EVER, much less any linkage between possible abolition and motivation for independence.

            In the Covid case, it appears from the excerpts given that we have at least three different questions.  One is whether Chinese Communist disease should be classified as a pandemic.  The others are what political use was made of it, and why, and what will the future bring.  Recall the expression "Never let a crisis go to waste."  I find it easy to believe that politicians used the situation as an excuse to institute policies they already wanted.  But the questions of 1)'How serious did they really think the disease is?' and 2)'How serious is it, actually?' are entirely unrelated to the question 3)'What use was made of the situation to advance the pre-existing agenda of making the future a boot stamping on a human face, forever?'

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *