My Current Location: Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)

Pseudopandemic: A Book Review. Part One

  • Teaser: Does the Covid-19 pandemic justify its title or has it been exaggerated deliberately to allow other agendas to be implemented. Read the following book review and make your own mind up. 




Iain Davis, journalist and writer for online sites such as UKColumn and Off-Guardian has written a passionate, eloquent and detailed analysis of the Covid-19 “pandemic”, backed with research and references. Yes, it is controversial and he makes many accusations about the agenda that those behind the pandemic are attempting to thrust upon the world. Is he right or is he just one more “conspiracy theorist”, barking into the void? Read the book and make your own mind up. This is the challenge Iain makes. What is really going on? Who is speaking the truth and is the pandemic really a pandemic? What is the evidence that allows us to make conclusions about what is going on and what we should do about it? Could it be that an annual respiratory disease (perhaps different to normal flu but no more deadly) is being deliberately exaggerated and manipulated for a very nefarious agenda, that could see permanent infringements on basic freedoms, increased coercive vaccine measures, a permanent surveillance culture and finally a fundamental “reset” of global financial and monetary structures. Or is this just an exaggerated “conspiracy” inspired delusion?

This very long review is separated into eight sections, in order to structure the material and give each section its own analysis.


  • Introduction; Chapter One: Pseudopandemic; Chapter Two: Global Public Private Partnerships (GPPP); Chapter Three: Who Cares About The Risk; Chapter Four: Keeping Us Safe; Chapter Five: A Testing Time


Summary: What does freedom really mean? How can governments in democracies simply take away fundamental liberties? We are told it is keep us safe, but is this safety really needed? Is the pandemic really a pandemic or a pseudopandemic and if it’s the latter, then who are the players behind it? Is the agenda of the World Health Organization, backed by organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum to fabricate and exaggerate the pandemic to give the pretext to roll out a nefarious game plan, which would involve the permanent evisceration of basic liberties and the imposition of a technocratic totalitarian reality for most people? Is this paranoid thinking or is there some truth to these thoughts? If the pandemic is real then why have so many natural and other therapies been simply ignored, suppressed or simply not used? It is certainly a very strange thing when you think about it.

The introduction makes the case that as human beings we are governed by Natural Justice and Natural Law. Human rights are only a political construct that can be removed if elite powers decide to, as we have seen in Covid times. Fundamental rights have been suspended in the name of public health! Who gave them the right to do this? Davis makes the case that, what he describes as “inalienable rights” cannot be given or taken away. As long as one person does no harm to another and does not restrict their inalienable rights, then no one can take these rights away. They don’t belong to any individual or government. “Natural Justice is an extension of Natural Law.” He challenges the language in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as it makes the case that these human rights are bestowed upon us through organizations like the United Nations. He says that’s wrong and that no one is in a position to bestow or take away these rights, which could be called “God’s Law” if you like. In other words, these cannot be removed and are beyond the tentacles of governments to morally take from us.

This is important as it lays the foundation for everything that follows and holds to account all those who may be complicit in manufacturing or exaggerating the Covid-19 pandemic and the agenda that is possibly behind it. In Chapter One, Pseudopandemic, Iain explores further the evidence that a “crime” is being committed, that the threat of a pandemic has been used to manufacture and manipulate facts and that there are three different types of players: 1. Core Conspirators, 2. Informed Influencers, 3. Deceived Influencers. And then there’s the rest of us! The billions. The first 3 groups, as Iain says, do not have to be that many. It requires strategically placed individuals and organizations with enormous resources to roll out their agenda(s). As Davis states there are many deceived influencers in governments world-wide and individuals working in health organizations who upon waking up to some of the dubious claims being made have found it too late to back down and confront the possible facts that a real conspiracy was unfolding, but felt they couldn’t speak out and compromise themselves professionally and/or politically.

Very importantly, Davis lays out the evidence of how the pandemic narrative needed to be maintained by controlling the mainstream media, including social media, implementing psychological operations, suppressing alternative opinions, vilifying and harassing legitimate “experts” who happened to disagree. The extraordinary campaign that mainstream media became part of in the North America, Europe, Australasia and elsewhere has been remarkable. The demonization of all who oppose into being “anti-science, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theorists” has been a relentless mantra for 18 months. They are termed “deniers” by some in the media. The New York Times has been particularly vehement in this accusation. The Guardian in the UK is not far behind.

The unique role of the World Health Organization is discussed by Davis and as he states, over 80% of its budget comes from “voluntary sources”, as opposed to formal contributions by member countries. By far the largest of these voluntary sources is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). The role of BMGF is significant given their influence and connection with Big Pharma and the vaccine industry and with Big Tech companies, including Microsoft and their involvement in the development of vaccine research and production, biometric ID, agriculture and many other associated ventures. The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus who previously was Director of the Global Fund and on the board of GAVI Vaccine Alliance, both BMGF funded ventures.

One other well-documented fact in this saga that Davis outlines clearly is how ANY possible alternative treatment for Covid-19 has been suppressed, censored, denied and legislated against. The extraordinary transparency of this fact with the obsession on the vaccine and expensive anti- viral drugs being the only solutions to the exclusion of all other options would be simply inconceivable in other times. And yet, it has happened. In order for the vaccines to be given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), there could legally be no other treatment options and so, that was achieved by the above methods of suppressing all treatment options and censoring any dissent. And now we have an untested gene therapy being rolled out onto the global population with no long-term safety tests, no proven efficacy and with extremely dubious figures to justify the need for a vaccine in the first place. What is extraordinary is how these facts have been suppressed and a majority of the world’s population are not seeing the full picture.

This is only the first chapter and yet already lays the foundation for what follows: an expose of the many people who have planned, funded, coordinated and enacted this false pandemic or “pseudopandemic,” as Davis calls it. Chapter two: Global Public Private Partnerships lays out the role of government-controlled health strategies and the involvement and ultimate control of global health policy by private organizations, in partnership with public ones, all in cooperation with United Nations and WHO dictates, including the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. The SDGs are part of a “humanistic sounding” development of strategic developments in global health, environmental and economic policy but which perhaps hides a much more anti-democratic globalist agenda with distinct totalitarian overtones. Is this sounding like a conspiracy? Davis continues to make the connections and links that show how private organizations and NGOs like the BMGF have infiltrated at the highest level of both governments and United Nations to influence policy and the global agendas of world governments. It has been happening actively for 20 years now and not just since Covid 19 hit the scenes. In other words, there is a concerted and organized plan for the future of our planet, being coordinated and implemented by the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP). It is being disguised by humanistic language in the U.N. but if Davis and others are right, it is anything but humanistic and democratic. It will be a form of Technocratic totalitarianism.

He further reveals how, in spite of various UK government bodies stating that Covid 19 did not represent a massive health risk due to its overall low mortality and infectiousness, the government ignored this in March 2020 and instead believed the simulated mathematical models of Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College, London who had a long history of making wildly wrong mathematical modeling of the numbers for other infectious disease outbreaks. That led to, on March 16th, Health Secretary Matt Hancock 2020, initiating the first of many “lockdowns”, all based on a fabricated mathematical model. This was enforced through the Coronavirus Act which passed the House of Commons on March 19th, announced by Prime Minister Johson on March 23rd and fast-tracked into law by March 25th. The interesting thing is that an existing Public Health Act of 1984 and Civil Contingencies Act 2004 already existed to deal with nearly all issues that would be faced in dealing a pandemic, and yet a new and potentially more permanent Coronavirus Act was rapidly passed into law. The question is why? Perhaps because by invoking the Civil Contingencies Act, a State of Emergency would have to be formally declared, holding the government more accountable to its decisions and consequences of them. By using the new act, they were able to bypass accountability. The story continues. Conspiracy theory or conspiracy fact?

Davis states at the beginning of Chapter Three, Who Cares About The Risk, that the threat of Covid-19 has been deliberately exaggerated and manipulated to fulfil a global agenda, a form of global coup d’etat. The pandemic was a fraud. It exploited real suffering and which was used to propel their agenda disguised as a “global health crisis.” This is a striking accusation to make. Can Davis back up this claim with evidence? Even if he can, will enough people be willing to suspend their own opinions to allow these facts to be considered. Are government actors and others really that nefarious in the aims and goals? For some, this is not easy to accept. The well-known fact is that when the WHO declared a global pandemic on March 11th 2020, (after having changed the definition and criteria needed to call a pandemic – eliminating the need for deaths to occur, only cases) only a few hundred deaths outside of China had taken place. Was this premature? It seems so. Davis follows the trail of how the WHO and mainstream media seemed to avoid any evidence that contradicted the so-called “facts” of institutions like Imperial College, London and the infamously inaccurate modeling of Dr. Neil Ferguson, who, funded partly by the BMGF for many years, projected in March 2020 hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid 19 within months and who has been spectacularly wrong on many other occasions. The mathematic modelling used to make the projections of possible mortality were so deeply flawed that Imperial College didn’t want others to analyze their methods.

The role of the WHO is discussed, especially in how it had called the 2009 swine flu H1N1 a pandemic, when in fact, it was a normal flu. This led to much criticism and condemnation of the WHO, including from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). The British Medical Journal and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism noted the collaboration between the WHO and the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI) and how the latter is mostly funded by Big Pharma and advisors of both organizations were employed or funded by the same pharmaceutic companies. Objective, they were not.

In Chapter 4, Keeping Us Safe, Davis further calls out the WHO in the way it changed the definition of a pandemic and also changed its definition of Herd Immunity, eliminating natural immunity that occurs when enough people get and recover from an illness. Now, according to the WHO, only vaccines create herd immunity, not when enough people have naturally been exposed to a pathogen. The WHO now seems able to ignore the basic tenets of epidemiology and the history of human adaptation in order to push the vaccine narrative. The Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced this new definition at a media briefing on 13th October 2020, and since then, the concept of natural immunity, leading to herd immunity in a community seems to have been erased for all media discourse. As Davis states, any other opinion is now routinely censored by social media platforms as it is not allowed to contradict edicts from the WHO. All media platforms are only allowed to cite opinions sanctioned by the WHO. Davis describes the actions of the WHO in demonising all other possible treatment options, including Hydroxychloroquine, which instead of being openly explored, was simply suppressed through its own faulty and lethal study and the dismissal of all other studies. Social Media giants have been told to suppress and censor anything that may support alternative treatments. Davis further explores what transpired to ensure that HCQ would not be used in the treatment of Covid-19. This alone should give all thinking people a motive to question the real agenda of the WHO and other organizations.

Davis describes the studies on Hydroxychloroquine done in the USA, UK and France, termed “Solidarity” (WHO), “Discovery” (France), and “Recovery, Principle and Copcov” trials (UK). In all cases, the trials were badly designed, at times used lethal doses (Knowingly above normal amounts commonly used) and in existing very sick patients and not in patients in first stages of sickness as some clinicians had already been successfully using it. Davis and many other authors have clearly shown that it seems these trials were designed deliberately to fail. How could they have used such high doses and why would they exclude using Zinc and a common antibiotic Azithromycin, which had been part of a widely used protocol? All evidence suggests this was deliberate and a medical crime. The Recovery trial in the UK seemed the worst, with a mortality rate of 25.7%. The evidence is damning, but yet, little has been said in the MSM. The Principle trial was the only one looking into possible prophylactic use of Hydroxychloroquine but the trial stopped on June 22nd 2020 after a fraudulent paper on the clinical use of Hydroxychloroquine was published in the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine. Even after the paper was retracted and said journals apologized with egg on their face, the trial didn’t resume. It seems clear the agenda was to suppress the use of HCQ and the MSM said virtually nothing. The complicity becomes clear, perhaps!

In Chapter Five, A Testing Time, Davis redefines the meaning of the “State” in the following way:

“The term "State" can be seen as a collective noun for the constituent organisations that form the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP): the GPPP is the global State. National governments operate as partner organisations within the GPPP. Governments are effectively State franchises.”

In this way, Davis is defining the restructured role of the state as part of larger global web of public/private partnership. He then further discusses the unscientific and flawed methods of Imperial College, whose reports in March 2020 were used to justify lockdowns globally. ICL said initially that 81% would become infected, ½ million would die by August in the UK and 2.2 million would die in the USA. It was an effective strategy. However, as Davis states, this was contradicted by the evidence taken from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, where an aged and susceptible population were exposed to the virus, leading to 81% being free from infection and only a few deaths in a total of 3,711 people on board. However, this was ignored in the light of the “modelling” by ICL.

Furthermore, Davis quotes how an infection tends to rise to peak of its own accord and then declines in contagiousness, which is termed Farr’s Law. In the UK that decline in infectious cases happened on March 4th 2020, more than 2 weeks BEFORE lockdown was introduced. Therefore, lockdowns make no difference. He quotes the work of Professor Michael Levitt of Stanford University, a biophysicist and nobel laureate, who did many studies of the progression of Covid 19 in the world and for his troubles was censored and ignored. Davis then further deconstructs the “dodgy science” behind the so-called isolation of the virus, which actually didn’t happen, the virus was not isolated, and the method of accumulation of viral and other fragments from sick people that become the material used to create the infamous RT-PCR tests. These tests are well-known to be highly inaccurate, especially when material analysed is over amplified for analysis. Davis cites more dodgy studies where researchers were highly compromised in their financial and professional relations, and the commercialization of the PCR tests to be used as the “gold standard” testing for Covid -19, something it patently is unable to do. It is sober reading and one wonders how on earth they all got away with it. Until you realize that all conflicting reports and criticisms from other scientists were simply ignored and suppressed. It didn’t matter where the criticism came from and how esteemed the person may have formerly been in his/her field. It no longer mattered. The WHO went ahead and recommended PCR tests, recommending 50 cycles of amplification, knowing that this will result in a massive amount of false positive results and is beyond the previously accepted cycle threshold (CT) of 34, the limits at which the test is in anyway viral specific. The WHO only recommended reducing the CT AFTER the vaccine had been released, thereby lowering the numbers of positive cases, with all the apparent success attributed to the vaccine, when it was simply moving the goalposts of the PCR CT limits. Some countries didn’t even state at what threshold their tests were used, and in the USA, it seems 40 was often the CT used, still way too high for any accurate analysis. Anything over 25 times leads to a high % of false results.

But even greater than this apparent fraud and distortion of the test, the test itself cannot identify an actual “case”, only a viral fragment, which may, or may not lead to symptoms developing. It was never designed as a diagnostic tool. Davis quotes a UK study in a care home in which “80.9% of people who tested positive were asymptomatic.” Davis further clarifies the importance of distinguishing between a positive test of SARS COV 2 and a “case” of Covid 19, two profoundly different things, and yet consistently mixed up by many scientists and government spokespeople, including the UK’s Chief Health Officer, Sir Patrick Valance, whose previous claim to fame was being on the board of vaccine company GlaxoSmithKline, which during his time was fined many millions of dollars for illegal activities. The story continues.