Disease X And The Expert Make-believe World

This week, heads of state gathered in Davos to deliberate on the possibility of a worldwide outbreak of “Disease X” and the expert’s best ways to be ready for it. Despite claims to the contrary, the proponents of this notion maintain that this disease will most certainly result in 20% more deaths than the COVID-19 pandemic, although no one appears to have any understanding of its origins, epidemiology, or any other distinguishing features.

Now mind you Davos is a clandestine rendezvous of prominent and covert world leaders to discuss plans for world domination spearheaded by a man named Klaus Schwab.

Chair Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus presided over a panel discussion titled “Preparing for Disease X,” during which the topic was “new initiatives needed to prepare healthcare systems for the various difficulties ahead if we are to be prepared for a much more devastating pandemic.”

Perhaps the most significant charge leveled against conventional science in recent times has taken shape in the ongoing discussion around “Disease X” and the expert make-believe world: the alleged use of “scientism” to advance societal and economic reforms as well as fundamental lifestyle shifts.

With his own spin on scientism, Patrick M. Wood has brought attention to the consequences of this potentially harmful combination:

Associating scientism with science is a huge mistake. Repeated experimentation and validation is the bedrock of true scientific inquiry into the universe. A theoretical, philosophical, and upside-down perspective of the universe and man’s place in it is scientism, in contrast. Without intervention, technocracy and transhumanism, which are manifestations of scientism, will lead to the death of humanity and the civilization it has created (Wood, 2022: 3).

What is the science?

Experts concur with this description, asserting that scientism is the endeavor to expand the boundaries of the natural sciences beyond their appropriate realm of explanatory capability, and the utilization of natural scientific procedures to elucidate phenomena that necessitate alternative kinds of explanation.

The eBook titled “Scientism: The New Orthodoxy” is available on Amazon.co.uk’s Kindle Store. It is authored by Richard N. Williams and Daniel N. Robinson.

In his 1962 publication “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Thomas Kuhn presented a groundbreaking departure from conventional perspectives on science. Speaking of science, disease x, and the expert make-believe world is a joke to me.

Furthermore, where is the flu?

He contended that scientific inquiry is shaped by “scientific paradigms,” which are frameworks for conducting research that stem from social conventions and behaviors, rather than impartially revealing objective truths.

Kuhn challenged the theories of ‘logical positivism’ by proposing that scientific discourse arises from the interactions of personalities engaged in scientific research. These interactions are influenced by social conventions and the interplay of cultural and institutional norms, ultimately leading to revolutionary scientific advancements.

via GIPHY

Disease X and the experts make-believe world of deceit

These concepts have acquired a significantly different significance since the beginning of this decade, since the emergence of the epidemic, accompanied by the slogan ‘follow the science’, has been marked by falsehoods, deception, incorrect information, deliberate misdirection, and propaganda.

The entirety of this has been implemented inside the framework of ‘science’, with the prominence of ‘scientific experts’ taking center stage.

For astute observers, it was evident that the individuals in charge of this agenda possessed a greater comprehension of the methods and techniques used to influence, pressure, and control individuals into accepting a particular storyline, rather than providing them with concrete evidence and data to support events and justify associated policies.

In the UK, the cultural significance of the NHS was utilized in a marketing campaign worth billions of pounds. This campaign focused on the themes of ‘saving granny’ and ‘contributing to the protection of the NHS from being overwhelmed’.

The government’s daily updates consistently reiterated the ‘hands, face, and space’ mantra, which was visually represented and reinforced in various public spaces such as high streets, shops, and gathering places.

Individuals were reminded of proper standing and walking protocols and were strongly encouraged, sometimes even coerced, to receive an experimental mRNA vaccine. Every action was executed in the pursuit of scientific knowledge; however, Disease X and the expert make-believe world is just that.

Ulrich Beck drops some knowledge

Ulrich Beck, a sociologist, argues that science has always faced criticism over its position and authority. However, a rising recognition of its potential for error has led to a cultural shift known as the “risk society,” which emerged in the mid-1980s.

Remember, we cannot sue the vaccine industry since 1986.

According to Beck, Risk Society is a time when the overarching stories of modernity, particularly the significant role of science, are examined and ultimately weakened by the burden of their inconsistencies and misleading statements.

Beck contended that incidents like Aberfan, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are instances where the adverse consequences of scientific advancements affected society as a whole, leading to a shift in public understanding of previously unquestioned scientific assertions.

The media’s increasing influence and technological advancements have played a significant role in this matter. Science, which used to be protected by experts, is now more exposed to the public eye and has become a subject of debate.

This has brought attention to the delicate balance between the positive and negative aspects of scientific advancements.

Disease X, the experts, and 2020

The events that have occurred since 2020 have elevated discussions surrounding science, its application and significance in society, as well as the individuals engaged in scientific endeavors, profitability, and marketing.

Science, as an esteemed institution and a reliable source of knowledge, is likely the primary factor responsible for the division prevalent in our society today.

Matthias Desmet’s book, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” has had a significant impact in explaining how ‘mass formation psychosis’ has deceived a substantial portion of the world’s people into accepting the circumstances that lead to an authoritarian takeover.

The mass formation theory diverges from contemporary psychological and sociological models of human behavior by drawing upon social psychology from the 1950s and early 1960s. It emphasizes the significance of conformity in reinforcing social norms and the phenomenon of ‘groupthink’.

The primary objectives of these investigations were to determine the methods and conditions by which individuals comprehend and analyze social cues. Desmet asserts that the pervasive worry induced by the pandemic renders individuals more vulnerable to manipulation and more inclined to comply with dubious policies, doubtful scientific claims, and malicious political schemes.

‘Following the science’ provides a resolution for individuals experiencing dread, anxiety, and/or confusion on how to navigate a world that has undergone unexpected upheaval and where everyday social norms have been altered.

The make-believe world of experts on Disease X conclusion

The erosion of the scientific method has been progressively evident as numerous disciplines have been afflicted by manipulation and political meddling. The field of science relies on the principles of objectivity, skepticism, and the openness to revise one’s beliefs in light of new information. It is incompatible with a culture that is highly politicized or that holds unwavering beliefs without considering evidence. Politics and religious ideologies have had a detrimental impact on the advancement of science in recent years, leading to its decline.

The contrast between individuals who continue to uphold the notion of ‘scientific truth’ and others who are now appropriately skeptical of such assertions has never been more pronounced. This leads us back to the topic of ‘Disease X’.

Engaging in talks and preparations for a hypothetical sickness, which is now only conceptualized by experts, would appear to be a further demonstration of how scientific knowledge has been stretched to its utmost bounds of plausibility in the past four years.

It is almost as if there has been a race amongst scientists, politicians, and the media to make the most ridiculous claim (‘this shot is 97% effective’, ‘you will only need one vaccination’, ‘we only met at Downing Street on official meetings and we were still following the science’, etc.).

Remarkably, a significant number of individuals have persisted in accepting the story that is being promoted. Even after the UK Government was found to have openly broken its own rules the same time as telling people to stay away from dying friends and relatives; even after untold numbers of people have been getting repeatedly sick after taking part in an experimental vaccination program; even after an excess worldwide death rate that has averaged over 20% higher during the past three years.

As the vaccine rollout has come under scrutiny — underlined by cameos like the Pfizer admission that vaccines were never vetted for transmission but, more starkly, by the sheer number of excess and ‘sudden deaths’ – the level of denial has remained breathtaking and unfathomable.

It has been argued that the science currently being rolled out can be more appropriately viewed as ‘the takeover of evolution’, whereby scientific endeavors of the last 30 years, including ‘genetic modification of bacteria, crop, seeds, grasses, insects, fish, and animals may look benign and promised to benefit mankind, but the practitioner’s goal is to hijack evolution to direct and control future life on earth’.

These are my 0.02 and question EVERYTHING!