Michael Lewis
On Pandemic Propaganda
I used to tell anyone that would listen that my favourite author was Michael Lewis.
I got hooked with Liar’s Poker and went on to read pretty much everything he wrote.
If you like these movies, they were all Michael Lewis books first:
Moneyball
The Blind Side
The Big Short
I don’t know anyone better than Lewis when it comes to investigative journalism/storytelling.
And then he wrote The Premonition, and I lost my favorite author.
Lewis become a State Propagandist. I can’t even look at the guy now, he still invokes a visceral reaction in me.
Jeffrey Tucker was the first to call him out on it in July 2021, the book was published in May 2021. Then Debbie Lerman did a most magnificent takedown of his propaganda in July 2023.
I thought it time to make my contribution to the “Michael Lewis is a propagandist” awareness campaign.
This one is worse than my Jon Stewart “tombstone.”
I wanted to do this post, just to have another bookmark, or a tombstone, to a man I used to really like.
It still hurts.
30 Questions & Answers
Based on these two articles1 by Tucker and Lerman.
Question 1: How does Michael Lewis's depiction of Carter Mecher contrast with the documented evidence of his background and role?
Answer: Mecher is portrayed as an unassuming ICU doctor who "knew nothing about pandemics" and was surprisingly called to the White House in 2005. The evidence shows Mecher was deeply involved in bioterrorism expertise, speaking at the Hudson Institute about anthrax scenarios and biological attacks. His supposed invisibility at the VA masks extensive connections to intelligence and national security organizations.
The portrayal of Mecher as a "doofus from the VA" working invisibly from home contradicts his documented role in biological threat preparedness and emergency response. His participation in the 2015 Hudson Institute conference on biodefense and his descriptions of biological attacks matching COVID-19 response protocols suggest a carefully constructed public persona hiding deeper institutional ties.
Question 2: What role did the Wolverines allegedly play in developing pandemic response policies, and how does this compare to their actual positions?
Answer: The book portrays the Wolverines as outsider renegades who developed lockdown strategies through analyzing the 1918 pandemic and a teenager's computer simulation, operating independently from government structures. Their ideas supposedly infiltrated CDC policy through Mecher's covert influence, eventually spreading globally through CDC's international authority.
In reality, the Wolverines were high-ranking officials in military and intelligence organizations, including the Department of Homeland Security, National Security Council, and various biodefense programs. Their pandemic response roles aligned with existing government positions rather than emerging from maverick innovation, as evidenced by their documented involvement in biodefense and national security planning.
Question 3: How does the narrative of Richard Hatchett's background in Lewis's book differ from his documented career history?
Answer: Lewis presents Hatchett as a regular doctor who surprisingly found himself in national security meetings where he "didn't really belong." This contrasts sharply with Hatchett's actual background as a CIA member serving on Bush's National Security Council, where he advocated for population confinement in response to biological threats.
Hatchett's role as Deputy Director and then Director of BARDA, his leadership of CEPI, and his appointments to multiple UK government pandemic response positions reveal a career deeply embedded in biodefense and medical countermeasures. His early involvement in COVID-19 vaccine partnerships in January 2020 further contradicts the portrayal of an outsider physician stumbling into policy positions.
Question 4: What is the significance of the "premonition" theme throughout Lewis's book, and how does it connect to broader narrative strategies?
Answer: The premonition theme serves to legitimize extreme policy responses by suggesting that enlightened individuals foresaw the pandemic's severity before others. Characters like Charity Dean and Joe DeRisi are portrayed as having supernatural insights about the coming crisis, lending an air of inevitability to subsequent policy decisions.
This narrative device appears in other contemporary accounts, including "The Vaccine" by Joe Miller, where characters experience similar prophetic revelations about lockdowns. The premonition theme helps establish a framework where drastic responses appear as predestined rather than calculated policy choices, obscuring the role of military and intelligence agencies in pandemic planning.
Question 5: How does Lewis's portrayal of the CDC's role in pandemic response support or conflict with the broader narrative he presented?
Answer: Lewis portrays the CDC as risk-averse and dysfunctional, unable to respond effectively to the crisis, thereby justifying the need for maverick outsiders to develop alternative strategies. This characterization creates a false dichotomy between bureaucratic ineffectiveness and rogue innovation.
The narrative obscures the actual decision-making structure revealed in the US Government's COVID-19 Response Plan, where biodefense and national security agencies held primary authority. By focusing on CDC's alleged failures, Lewis diverts attention from the military and intelligence community's dominant role in shaping pandemic policy.
Question 6: What was the actual origin of lockdown policies according to the critical analysis, and how does this differ from Lewis's account?
Answer: According to the critical analysis, lockdown policies emerged from military and intelligence agency planning for bioterrorism responses, developed through established national security frameworks. This contradicts Lewis's story of lockdowns originating from Mecher and the Wolverines' analysis of the 1918 pandemic and a teenager's science project.
The documented involvement of the Biodefense Directorate, BARDA, and other national security organizations suggests lockdowns were part of existing biodefense planning rather than an innovative solution from outsiders. The policy's implementation aligned with military response protocols rather than public health traditions.
Question 7: How did the concept of "rogue" or "outsider" status serve the book's narrative purposes?
Answer: The rogue status attributed to the Wolverines serves to distance their actions from official government planning, creating an illusion of grassroots innovation rather than institutional policy implementation. This characterization helps obscure their actual positions within military and intelligence hierarchies.
By positioning key figures as outsiders, Lewis's narrative minimizes their connections to national security infrastructure while legitimizing unprecedented policy decisions as necessary innovations from independent thinkers. This framing helps normalize extreme measures by presenting them as solutions from maverick problem-solvers rather than predetermined security protocols.
Question 8: What role did the "Red Dawn" emails play in shaping public perception of the pandemic response?
Answer: The Red Dawn emails, leaked to the New York Times, presented Mecher as an prescient voice warning about viral danger and advocating for immediate lockdowns. Despite dozens of high-level officials being copied on these emails, the conversations primarily featured Wolverines and biodefense experts, suggesting careful narrative construction.
These emails served as supporting documentation for the broader narrative of outsider expertise driving pandemic response. Their strategic release and selective participation patterns suggest they were part of a coordinated effort to shape public perception rather than genuine policy deliberations.
Question 9: How did Lewis's treatment of John Ioannidis reflect broader patterns of expert criticism during the pandemic?
Answer: Lewis dismissively portrays Ioannidis, a renowned Stanford professor and biomedical data expert, as someone who "became a sensation on U.S. cable news" by claiming the virus posed no real threat. This characterization ignores Ioannidis's extensive expertise and misrepresents his actual positions on pandemic response.
The dismissal of Ioannidis exemplifies a larger pattern of marginalizing credentialed experts who questioned lockdown policies. Lewis's portrayal, combined with similar attacks in other media outlets, suggests a coordinated effort to discredit scientific perspectives that challenged the official narrative.
Question 10: What was the significance of the Biodefense Directorate's transformation into the Resilience Directorate?
Answer: The transformation represents a key institutional shift that Lewis mentions but doesn't fully explore, showing how biodefense operations were integrated into broader national security frameworks. This reorganization under Obama's administration reflects the growing fusion of public health and national security infrastructure.
The change facilitated the application of biodefense protocols to public health emergencies, creating institutional pathways for military and intelligence agencies to influence pandemic response. This structural evolution provides important context for understanding how national security frameworks came to dominate public health decision-making.
Question 11: How did Lewis's book handle the economic and social costs of lockdown policies?
Answer: Lewis notably omits discussion of lockdowns' economic impacts, including the destruction of small businesses, massive unemployment, and broader economic disruption. The text indicates he ignores crucial data about cancer screening reductions, increased substance abuse, teen mental health crises, and educational losses.
The omission of these costs helps maintain the narrative of lockdowns as a necessary and successful intervention. By avoiding discussion of negative consequences, the book sidesteps questions about the proportionality and wisdom of the response, focusing instead on the perceived threat and the supposed genius of the policy's architects.
Question 12: What connections existed between the Wolverines and various intelligence/military organizations?
Answer: Each Wolverine held significant positions in national security organizations, despite Lewis's portrayal of them as outsiders. James Lawler was qualified in biosafety level-4 operations and worked in DoD threat reduction. Duane Caneva served as Chief Medical Officer for Homeland Security and directed CBRN programs. Matt Hepburn worked with DARPA and led Operation Warp Speed's vaccine development.
These connections extended through organizations like the National Security Council, Homeland Security Council, and various biodefense initiatives. Rather than being independent actors, they formed an interconnected network within the military-intelligence establishment, with direct ties to bioweapons research and counterterrorism programs.
Question 13: How did Lewis's book contribute to the larger propaganda framework identified in the critical analysis?
Answer: The book reinforces key elements of the official COVID narrative by presenting lockdowns as a public health innovation rather than a military response. It obscures the role of intelligence agencies while promoting the idea that the response emerged organically from medical professionals working outside government structures.
Lewis's narrative aligns with other publications like "The Vaccine" and "Lessons from the Covid War," forming part of a coordinated effort to establish an alternative history of the pandemic response. His status as a respected author lends credibility to this version of events, helping legitimize unprecedented policy decisions.
Question 14: What role did Heidi Avery play in the narrative, and what does her position reveal about the broader context?
Answer: Lewis mentions Avery only briefly as someone who "came from some deep place in the intelligence community," understating her significant role. As CIA director within the Office of Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council, she was responsible for supporting the president on intelligence matters, including covert actions.
Her oversight of Mecher during the Obama administration reveals the deep intelligence community involvement in pandemic planning. Her position contradicts the book's portrayal of pandemic response as emerging from independent medical professionals, instead showing direct CIA supervision of key players.
Question 15: How did the book's treatment of early pandemic warnings support its broader narrative goals?
Answer: Lewis presents characters like Charity Dean and Joe DeRisi as having prophetic insights about COVID-19's severity before others recognized the threat. This framing supports the book's larger narrative of enlightened outsiders seeing what government bureaucrats missed.
The "premonition" theme appears designed to justify extreme responses by suggesting they were anticipated by uniquely perceptive individuals. This narrative device helps normalize unprecedented policies by presenting them as inevitable rather than chosen responses, while obscuring the pre-existing plans of security agencies.
Question 16: What was the significance of the Hudson Institute conference in understanding Mecher's actual role?
Answer: The 2015 Hudson Institute conference, where Mecher discussed anthrax scenarios, reveals his expertise in bioterrorism response. His presentation described biological attacks in terms strikingly similar to how COVID-19 was later characterized, suggesting continuity between bioweapons planning and pandemic response.
The conference produced a National Blueprint for Biodefense focused on terrorist threats, contradicting Lewis's portrayal of Mecher as an ordinary doctor concerned with natural pandemics. This event demonstrates Mecher's deep involvement in national security planning years before COVID-19.
Question 17: How did the book's treatment of natural vs. engineered virus origins reflect larger narrative patterns?
Answer: Lewis's narrative aligns with efforts to establish SARS-CoV-2 as definitively natural in origin, supporting one of the key propaganda goals identified in the critical analysis. The book avoids discussing potential laboratory origins or bioweapon concerns, despite the central characters' extensive backgrounds in bioweapons research.
This approach mirrors broader efforts to separate pandemic response policies from their origins in bioweapons defense planning. By focusing on natural outbreak scenarios, the book helps maintain distance between public health measures and military/intelligence frameworks.
Question 18: What role did the Great Barrington Declaration play in the broader context of expert dissent?
Answer: Lewis notably omits mention of the Great Barrington Declaration and its nearly one million signatures, including thousands of scientists and medical practitioners. This significant opposition to lockdown policies from credentialed experts is absent from his narrative.
The omission exemplifies the book's selective approach to expert opinion, acknowledging only perspectives that support its narrative while ignoring substantial scientific opposition. This treatment aligns with broader efforts to marginalize alternative approaches to pandemic management.
Question 19: How did Lewis's characterization of public health expertise support the book's central themes?
Answer: Lewis dismisses traditional public health experts who opposed school closures as people who "did not actually know all that much about the subject." This characterization elevates the judgment of his protagonists above established public health wisdom and decades of pandemic planning experience.
By diminishing traditional public health expertise, the book justifies the override of standard protocols in favor of novel approaches. This supports the narrative of outsider innovation while delegitimizing opposition from within the public health establishment.
Question 20: What was the relationship between the book's narrative and broader media coverage of the pandemic?
Answer: Lewis's narrative connects to and reinforces other media elements, including BuzzFeed takedowns of critics and the strategic release of Red Dawn emails. These interconnected pieces work together to establish and maintain the official pandemic response narrative.
The book serves as part of a larger media ecosystem that promoted certain interpretations while marginalizing others. Its publication by a respected author lends credibility to narratives that appeared in less prestigious outlets, helping crystallize the official version of events.
Question 21: How did the portrayal of the VA's role obscure other institutional connections?
Answer: Lewis emphasizes Mecher's position at the VA as an invisible bureaucrat, using this characterization to minimize his extensive connections to intelligence and biodefense networks. The portrayal of the VA as an ineffective bureaucracy provides cover for Mecher's actual role in national security operations.
The VA serves as a convenient institutional backdrop that helps maintain the narrative of outsider status while concealing deeper connections to military and intelligence organizations. This misdirection helps maintain the image of Mecher as a maverick rather than an embedded operative.
Question 22: What role did computer modeling play in justifying pandemic policies according to the book?
Answer: Lewis presents the origin of lockdown policies as emerging from a teenager's science fair project combined with computer simulations, rather than from military planning. This narrative reduces complex policy decisions to simple modeling exercises, obscuring the actual institutional frameworks behind them.
The focus on computer modeling helps present lockdowns as an innovative solution discovered through civilian research rather than acknowledging their origins in biodefense planning. This characterization supports the book's broader narrative of outsider innovation while minimizing military connections.
Question 23: How did Lewis's book handle questions of civil liberties and government overreach?
Answer: The book notably avoids substantive discussion of civil liberties implications, treating them as secondary concerns compared to the perceived emergency. Ken Cuccinelli's reduction of DHS intelligence oversight receives minimal attention, despite its significance for civil liberties.
This approach mirrors the broader narrative strategy of minimizing concerns about rights and liberties in favor of security imperatives. The book frames opposition to restrictions as denial rather than legitimate concern about government overreach.
Question 24: What was the significance of the "quarantine-until-vaccine" paradigm in the broader narrative?
Answer: Lewis presents the quarantine-until-vaccine strategy as an organic response to the crisis rather than a pre-planned approach. The early involvement of CEPI and vaccine partnerships in January 2020 suggests this strategy was predetermined rather than reactive.
The narrative obscures how this approach aligned with existing biodefense protocols, instead presenting it as an innovative solution developed in response to unique circumstances. This framing helps normalize what was actually an unprecedented public health strategy.
Question 25: How did international adoption of lockdown policies factor into the book's narrative?
Answer: Lewis suggests global lockdown adoption occurred through CDC's international influence, with their plan spreading organically worldwide. This explanation overlooks the coordinated nature of international response and the role of security agencies in promoting these policies.
The book's treatment of international adoption helps maintain the narrative of medical rather than military origins for lockdown policies, while avoiding examination of how this unprecedented approach gained simultaneous global acceptance.
Question 26: What was the role of CEPI in the early pandemic response, and how was it portrayed?
Answer: Though CEPI began COVID-19 vaccine partnerships in January 2020 with only 581 confirmed cases worldwide, Lewis minimizes this early preparation. Richard Hatchett's leadership of CEPI and its rapid vaccine response suggest pre-planning rather than reactive policy.
The book's limited treatment of CEPI's early involvement helps maintain the narrative of organic response rather than revealing the extent of advance preparation and coordination among international organizations.
Question 27: How did the book's treatment of risk assessment align with its broader narrative goals?
Answer: Lewis avoids detailed discussion of COVID-19's differential risk profiles across age groups and demographics. This omission supports the narrative of uniform danger requiring universal measures, rather than acknowledging the targeted nature of the virus's impact.
The simplified risk narrative helps justify universal lockdown policies rather than focused protection measures. This approach aligns with the book's broader strategy of supporting comprehensive control measures regardless of varied risk levels.
Question 28: What was the significance of the Covid Crisis Group in relation to the book's narrative?
Answer: The Covid Crisis Group included multiple Wolverines and other characters from Lewis's book, demonstrating the interconnected nature of pandemic narrative promotion. Their "investigative report" heavily referenced other propaganda pieces, including Deborah Birx's account.
This group's composition and activities reveal the coordinated nature of pandemic narrative construction, with Lewis's book serving as one element in a broader propaganda campaign.
Question 29: How did Lewis's book connect to other pandemic-related publications and media coverage?
Answer: The book links to various other publications promoting similar narratives, including "We Want Them Infected" and "The Vaccine." These works share common themes and often reference each other, creating a self-reinforcing narrative network.
The interconnected nature of these publications suggests coordinated narrative construction rather than independent reporting. Lewis's contribution lends mainstream credibility to this broader propaganda effort.
Question 30: What role did national security frameworks play in shaping the book's narrative structure?
Answer: While the book minimizes explicit discussion of national security frameworks, its structure mirrors intelligence community narrative construction techniques. The use of seemingly independent characters and events to construct a predetermined narrative reflects sophisticated propaganda methods.
The book's organization serves to obscure rather than reveal the actual power structures behind pandemic response, supporting the larger goal of presenting military/intelligence decisions as civilian public health measures.
I appreciate you being here.
If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
For COVID vaccine injury
Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
"I don’t know anyone better that Lewis when it comes to investigative journalism/storytelling.
And then he wrote The Premonition, and I lost my favorite author.
Lewis become a State Propagandist. I can’t even look at the guy now, he still invokes a visceral reaction in me."
I had the same experience at the same time.
☙ How do we shed these psychopaths who are hell bent on destroying everything; locking us up, poisoning us, killing us; who — in a sane society — should never have survived the playgrounds of childhood and who will never stop ?
❧ I wonder who ever spent time talking about Wuhan when we all must have know the nitty gritty of it was it was an in-house op ?