COVID-1984: Your handy guide to doublethink, memory holing and thoughtcrime

13 September 2021

In George Orwell’s never-more-relevant dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith’s job at the Ministry of Truth is to quite literally rewrite history by revising old newspaper articles to bring them into line with the ever-changing narrative of the Party.

Thanks to the wonders of technology, modern-day practitioners of the fine art of doublethink don’t have to work ninety hour weeks like poor Winston; instead of laboriously hand-correcting old newspaper articles, they can simply update web pages. Et voilà! Another thoughtcrime averted.

So, back in 2009 when the World Health Organization (WHO) was being pressured by pharmaceutical companies which had multimillion dollar sleeper contracts with various national governments – contracts that compelled these governments to purchase vaccines and antivirals if WHO declared an influenza pandemic – WHO obliged by changing the definition of a pandemic. This definitional change was then propagated around the world, with just a few clicks on a keyboard.

Before the definition change:

And after:

And just like that, WHO was able to declare a “pandemic” of H1N1 influenza, paving the way for its pharma cronies to make out like bandits on a flu season that was one of the mildest in many years, as Lilian Franck documented in her film Trust WHO:

Fast forward to 2021. When people with functioning brain cells (you might know them by their Newspeak names: “conspiracy theorists” and “antivaxxers”) who had concerns about the wisdom of deploying novel methods never before used in vaccine manufacture onto entire populations before clinical trials were completed, began questioning whether products that used mRNA and viral vector technology could really be described as “vaccines”, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary obligingly altered its definition of a vaccine:

Before (18 January 2021):

And after (26 January 2021):

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) weren’t quite as quick off the mark as Merriam-Webster. It wasn’t until early this month that they memory-holed their previous definition of a vaccine.

Before the CDC updated their definition, a vaccine actually had to “produce immunity to a specific disease” in order to qualify for the title:

But after the definition change, a product merely needs to “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases” to qualify as a vaccine:

Note the delightful vagueness of the updated definition. Even the qualifier “a specific disease” has been removed. Apparently, any “preparation” that stimulates an immune response against any old disease, or perhaps a multiplicity of diseases, will do. So would a soup made from mushrooms now count as a vaccine? Mushrooms stimulate the immune response against diseases. So do carotenoids, polyphenols, zinc, and vitamin D. Are they all vaccines now too?

Fortunately for many government agencies and corporations (as if there’s much distinction between these entities, in this era of regulatory capture), it’s becoming increasingly unnecessary to hire digital Winston Smiths to rewrite history. They can simply change their story mid-stream, without anyone in the dinosaur media holding them to account.

For example, back in August 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sought to assuage the fears of “vaccine hesitant” Americans that the pharmaceutical industry might exert undue influence over the captured FDA, by proclaiming their commitment to “use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public”. Sounds good, right?

However, the FDA abruptly reversed course in August 2021, informing The BMJ that they “did not believe a meeting was necessary ahead of the expected granting of full approval.” So much for public transparency. And not a peep out of the dinosaur media, who fell over themselves to frame the FDA approval as the final nail in the coffin for vaccine hesitancy, without even mentioning the fact that the agency had reneged on its promise to consult an independent advisory committee before making its decision.

And remember all those claims that vaccines were “the only way out of the pandemic” because they would get us to herd immunity, prevent serious illness, keep people out of hospital and save lives? How’s that working out?

Well, firstly, vaccine-induced herd immunity is now acknowledged to be a pipe dream.

And secondly, none of the clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines were “designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths”.

On-the-ground experience in heavily-vaccinated populations such as Israel and the UK indicate that fully-vaccinated people have little to no reduction in the risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19; in the UK, people who have had two injections have a slightly higher rate of hospitalisation for/with the Delta strain of SARS-CoV-2 (1.64%) than the unvaccinated (1.15%).

The non-peer-reviewed preprint which Pfizer submitted to FDA in pursuit of full approval of its products – disingenuously titled ‘Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine‘ but which in fact includes six months of blinded follow-up data for a mere 7% of trial participants, while only 53% made it to 4 months of follow-up – trumpeted that the Pfizer injection was 97% effective in preventing “severe, FDA-defined COVID-19” but failed to provide any data on hospitalisations, making it impossible to determine just how “severe” these participants’ illness was. The reference provided for the FDA definition of “severe COVID-19” is hardly enlightening:

And that same Pfizer preprint revealed that 15 trial participants who received the vaccine died during the blinded follow-up period (one of them of COVID-19 pneumonia) compared to 14 participants who received the placebo (two of them from COVID-19):

Furthermore, after the trial was unblinded, another three deaths occurred in participants who had been randomised to receive the Pfizer injection, while two people who had been randomised to placebo but subsequently received the Pfizer injection also died.

While the preprint declared (without describing the investigational process) that none of these deaths “were considered related to BNT162b2 [the Pfizer jab] by investigators”, the causes of death amongst vaccine recipients include multiple cardiac-related conditions (cardiac arrest, cardiorespiratory arrest, congestive heart failure and hypertensive heart disease) which could quite conceivably be caused by a product that causes your body to manufacture the spike protein which is known to damage the endothelial lining of blood vessels, potentially triggering blood clots and elevated blood pressure.

So the FDA has now granted full approval to a product which has not been demonstrated to save lives, keep people out of hospital or stop them from getting infected and passing infection to others, and has done so without consulting its vaunted panel of independent experts.

But never mind all those pesky facts. Big Brother has spoken, and inconvenient truths have been memory holed. The “vaccines” – all of them, mind you – are “safe and effective”. And if you question any of this patent nonsense, you’re guilty of thoughtcrime.

No wonder so many people have given up trying to make sense of any of the glaringly self-contradictory statements mouthed by the Inner Party wannabes who infest our TV screens, and have instead lapsed into mindless conformity with absurd orthodoxies such as wearing masks that don’t protect them or help them protect others, maintaining physical distance – 3 feet? 6 feet? 1.5 metres? 2 metres? – from others despite it being a “non-scientific estimate” that lacks solid evidence to back it up, and reflexively using QR check-ins despite contact tracing being acknowledged to be pointless once community transmission is established.

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four

Spoiler alert for those who have not yet read it: Nineteen Eighty-Four does not have a happy ending. George Orwell intended the book to serve as a warning against totalitarianism, which does not abruptly descend upon a society like a giant net trap, but instead progressively ensnares it through a creeping redefinition of language, loss of collective memory and erasure of history.

But through Winston Smith, Orwell whispers the remedy for the societal psychosis of totalitarianism:

“Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four

It appears that George Orwell never penned the aphorism frequently attributed to him, “speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act”, but it is nonetheless true. I exhort all of you who have been muttering to yourselves that something about this whole COVID thing just isn’t right, that now is the time to pluck up your courage, find your voice, gather your tribe, stop complying with bullying and nonsense, and push back against the Hobbesian biosecurity state that is being slotted into place around us.

Do it now, before you’re arrested for thoughtcrime.

Are you confused by the scientific claims and counter-claims that you encounter through popular and social media? Would you like to learn how to read scientific research, assess its biases, and understand how it fits within the body of scientific literature? My EmpowerEd membership program is custom-made for you! Activate your free 1-month trial today!