Thanks Paul for sharing Andrews essay, very interesting to get a 'behind the scenes' perspective on this insanity.
It's been maddening to see friends, family, colleagues captured by this group-think pro-censor movement. I keep wondering if I am the crazy one, but then I open my copy of The Demon-Haunted World, remind myself of how science ought to be conducted, and soldier on. It is really bizarre how many esteemed scientists, journalists, and intellectuals immediately tossed out the Mertonian Norms in March of 2020.
The creep of "bigotry of low expectations" is unsettling. I would be insulted if I learned that Facebook was protecting me from having my views and claims challenged. I would feel so disrespected to learn that AI scripts were setup to remove me from seeing even the slightest challenge to my ideas without my consent. I would think that would lead to an identity crisis, to learn that all along, the reason I never saw dissent wasn't because no good arguments could be formed, rather, I wasn't allowed to see alternative hypothesis or flaws in my reasoning because Big Tech didn't respect my ability to handle critique.
For the archives, I'm posting two instances Facebook prevented my (I believe) respectful comments from reaching their desired targets. Both auto moderated by Facebook, for anyone who cares to skim through these posts, note how even benign pushback using government sponsored sources triggers censorship.
Example A, The Unbiased Science Podcast shared this post [1] in May of 2021 attempting to explain why California and Florida were seeing such similar results despite having vastly different policies on masks, which they (Jess and Andrea), felt was due to confounders, rather than considering cloth masks didn't prevent viral transmission. Having spent considerable time compiling, reviewing, and occasionally replicating every single mask study shared across traditional and social media the past 2 years [2], I thought I would politely point out to them that the studies they relied on and cited for mask efficacy, ignored the very same confounders they used to explain why California and Florida were having such similar outcomes despite masking.
As a professional, I would hate to be spreading studies of such poor quality, and I assumed that as professional science influencers perhaps they hadn't had the time to recreate the results of the Kansas and Tennessee mask studies since originally published, because if they had they would see the claims made within collapsed be re-running the results a few months later. Since I had that time, thought I would share, but Facebook wouldn't even give them the courtesy to be challenged. They both continue to promote masking, and I have to wonder, how much of their passion for masking might have been tempered were they allowed to have their views challenged early on, rather than Big Tech ensuring the data dredged studies they reposted never saw sunlight?
Example B, A close friend had shared an article from MSM in August of 2021 (probably NYT, maybe WaPa), lamenting that the reason vaccinated people are getting infected was because variants were driven by unvaccinated people, and had everyone gotten vaccinated these variants wouldn't have been able to penetrate the vaccine.
Again, Facebook felt my friend must be too stupid to handle another hypothesis, so prevented him from looking at some CDC links and comments from Michael Osterholm that countered this idea. In this case I appealed the FB censor decision, a week later they said appeal accepted and it was their mistake, but my original posts still never appeared in that thread which my friend confirmed.
I also wonder about Facebook's algorithms. Whenever I post a funny meme on my homepage, I get quite a few reactions. But whenever I occasionally post something more serious, usually about scientific censorship...crickets. I don't know if this is because a) people are not interested in serious content, b) people are afraid to react to what might be considered Covid skepticism, or c) the algorithm is preventing these posts from being seen unless people visit my homepage directly.
So far the only post of mine that Facebook has yanked was a funny meme about Trump advising people to drink bleach. This post was removed by Facebook TWO YEARS after I posted it, and they reversed their decision when I appealed. The funniest thing was their reason for pulling the post: it might encourage people to engage in dangerous self-harm. That's a whole joke all by itself.
Facebook wouldn't let me post any comments about covid from ANY source. I was just trying to post CDC links, but fb ate them all - probably close to 100. Sometimes it let me post screenshots of the info, tho.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the centralization of the internet into facebook and twitter is at the heart of the problem. It's too tempting for censors and basically requires robot moderators, and robots are very bad at moderating.
Scientific censorship (beginning with natural immunity) was the first step in the process that turned me into a recovering liberal. If I quoted every paragraph that struck me as exceptionally well-phrased, I would end up quoting the entire article. This articulates brilliantly many of my feelings. Thank you.
Just FYI, liberals and leftists are not the same thing. People on the left in western countries are very pro freedom of speech and anti-censorship. Think old-school ACLU. We have historically been the primary targets of censorship. Still are a lot of times. Now it's not JUST us, tho.
Don't know if you're in the US or not – I was speaking from a US perspective. From something eugyppius wrote a while back, it appears that political labels don't apply the same way in Europe as they do in the US. At any rate, for "recovering liberal" in my statement you could just as easily say "recovering from tribalism".
No one is more committed to free inquiry and dissent than I am. Most of your article makes sense. But not all. When you refer to vaccination as violating bodily "autonomy", then I question your reasoning and principles. The notion that in the middle of a pandemic that is killing millions an individual can decide whether or not to cooperate in minimizing deaths is not liberty but irresponsibility. Vaccination for many childhood diseases has been mandatory for nearly a century. No one questioned the need for it. It was always understood that some might suffer adverse reactions but this is true of all drugs, everywhere on earth. The notion that an individual can make moral decisions suiting herself but potentially harming many others is like allowing armed criminals loose and hoping they behave themselves. Your personal judgment of how we dealt with public health and minimizing deaths is not the basis for public policy. You have no right to carry a disease and be allowed free contact with other people. You would be committing a criminal act. Putting your own concept of liberty ahead of social responsibility and sound medical practice is not autonomy but anarchy. The mistakes of doctors and government are not intentional and sometimes there will be faulty judgment or errors. But personal responsibility for acts with wide public consequences that can lead to deaths is MANDATORY. Get your head together. You are not the emperor of the world, and your personal judgement doesn't override that of others who look to government to protect their health and welfare. Or do you not think this is the responsibility of government?
Because the vaccine did not stop transmission -- and this was obvious to anyone who could read by June of 2021 -- my decision whether to get vaccinated is no more your or anyone else's business than my decision to get a colonoscopy. Same with cloth masks, as anyone who has used a respirator in a woodshop can tell you (unless you think viruses are bigger than the wood dust I invariably find in my mouth and nostrils after working in the shop).
As for relying on a monolithic government to protect my health and welfare, what if that government is wrong (or worse, subject to dubious motivations)? It's a good question because in this case the authorities were wrong about so many things, and no one was allowed to challenge them or suggest alternative approaches! The Great Barrington signatories were never debated, simply demonized and dismissed . . . and now we know they were right. And health authorities drunk with power refused to weigh the downsides of their policies (which were horrific) with the benefits (which were questionable), unlike how we approach virtually all other social or political questions. How can you or anyone else possibly defend this disastrous record, in the autumn of 2022?
Civil liberty concerns aside, that's not how you run public health to achieve good outcomes.
Science is the practice of debunking accept wisdom, not circling the wagons and defending it from all quarters.
While I can think of a scenario where your argument would make sense — a genuine pandemic of a genuinely dangerous disease, as bad as, or worse than, the reported 30% death rate from the medieval black plague —this wasn't it. It was pointed out in spring 2020, by the respected Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford, that the infection death rate had been greatly exaggerated. It was very clear by mid-2021 that the vaccines were not sterilizing vaccines as had been promised, and that they weren't preventing transmission.
Very early in 2020 we were all scared and had no idea what was really happening. We were terrified by videos coming from China (now known to be fake) of people dying on the street. We were told incessantly that if we got sick we would probably die, and that only the promised vaccines would save us. Unfortunately, the thinking of many people about Covid was calcified during this period. It doesn't help that dissenting voices were demonized and censored, which is still going on, witness the recent law in California muzzling doctors.
What I wish more people would ask themselves is, Why was all this censorship necessary? Who stands to benefit? Unfortunately, most people either don't know or won't acknowledge the existence of this censorship. For myself, I did acquiesce to the first shots, reluctantly, so that my neighbors would be more comfortable with me. A decision which I now regret.
I came down with Covid in the beginning of April 2020. I’m not young, and I have a rare disease, so I was elated to come through it relatively unscathed and make a complete recovery. I was a nurse in my younger days, so I felt confident in my natural immunity. To be safe, I had my antibody levels tested every 2 months—same test being used to determine the efficacy of the vaccines. Always sky high, off the charts. In November of 2021 I was mandated by my (academic) employer to get vaccinated, and despite a letter requesting exemption from my doctor, my exemption was denied. I was stunned. Not only was my natural immunity intact, but the doctor-patient relationship had been violated. I did not get the mRNA vaccine, and fortunately, I had no side effects. But this has crushed any faith I had in the health care system. I’m lucky to have a good doctor, but throughout the pandemic I’ve seen their struggle with what went on. I really thought when the research started making its way into the mainstream psyche, there would be some sort of public contrition on the part of those screaming for "concentration camps" and expulsion from society for the unvaccinated.
Nothing obvious aside from a headache. But from this point forward, anything bad that happens, I can't help wondering if it's all those spikes floating around.
Has anyone had any luck in re-engaging the subject of censorship. I have tread lightly as it is quite alienating and I do love my husband…who would like us to have friends. But when can I have normal discourse with my once intelligent friends. I’ve tried a few times, but it’s like they have no idea, and I’m beginning to think they won’t until npr is willing to address the issue.
(I had an adverse reaction to the vaccine, as did another in our small friend group of 15-myocarditis and bullous phemphigis.
It honestly blows my mind that my close friends who still are my friends, think I’m blinded by bias and obsessed with the pandemic because I was one of the rare individuals who suffered adverse reactions.
I’m a therapist, I’ve always questioned the pharmaceutical industry (they loved it back when) I went to the new school (critical thinking was our bread and butter) I do my homework on everything from my kids to my dog, and that industry was my gateway drug… to understanding the corruption.
Anyway, maybe Ill send this article…or wait for npr, or maybe someone else has an approach they would care to share🙏
I've been concentrating lately on how to talk to people in the "other" camp without alienating them. Gently inserting bugs into their ear that will hopefully make them aware of their cognitive dissonance. Haranguing and accusation absolutely are counterproductive, people immediately go into defensive Shields Up mode and their ears turn off.
Yesterday I discovered a YouTube channel that has some very good techniques, which some might view as manipulative but actually are ways of connecting with someone who disagrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/@Charismaoncommand
Thank you, will definitely check it out. It’s funny I thought for sure that when “once” conspiracy theories surfaced as legit inquiry or even acknowledged truths, that there would be this wave among the “other” camp to start questioning the narrative and see where else they were blinded, but that does not appear to be the case. Instead like we are dealing with a large scale personality disorder. Even when they come to believe what was once “right wing extremist thinking” they conveniently forget to show respect to those who helped get the information to the forefront. I do not include my meager attempts, rather those of you writing these articles and doing the journalism that allows us the gift of true critical thinking. If there is one thing I’ve learned is that my children will be well versed in Socratic questioning.
Your last paragraph is the best summation of the whole Covid Planned Demic in my book: Pandemic information controls and restrictions on free speech had real world consequences that contributed to poorer, not better, public health outcomes. By neglecting to address corporate and government pandemic censorship, the digital rights movement failed in its core mission of securing online freedom of expression.
Once we give up our freedoms, any of those freedoms from digital rights to personal body autonomy rights, for whatever reason we are stepping out onto the slippery slope of tyranny that endangers all of us in terrible ways! But when we give up those rights based mainly on FEAR to give us some modicum of SAFETY, as the person references above in the scolding that we have no personal right to walk around with sickness to infect humanity from a disease with a 99.975% survival rate, then it is easy to see that those in power will continually use the FEAR PORN to maintain their power and silence any dissent in every journalistic medium!!!
The biggest problem I have with everything that we were told by every government, their agencies, the WHO most scientists and Doctors during this planned Demic was just plain wrong!!! What did they get right??? And yet they keep insisting we may someday soon need to go back to masking, which never did nor will work; social distancing, which we all now know 20 feet apart is no better than 6 feet apart for an airborne viral illness transmission; and lockdowns which have been proven on many fronts to not work and are in fact more dangerous and deadly than the virus we are trying to protect ourselves from!!! And with the mRNA jabs what did we find out? They don’t prevent transmission, stop transmission, work anywhere near as effectively as we were told and have serious if not deadly side effects when we were told repeatedly by everyone from The President of The United States to your local Nurse Practitioner that they are 100% safe and won’t hurt you at all; trust us!!!
And yet today the MSM continues to hold all of the Cast of Characters, from Fauci to Walensky to Albert Bora of Pfizer, as the unquestionable experts and people with the final say on what we should all listen too!
We have all been dealt a very dirty hand by every journalist from every medium that drunk this Kool-aid and has not offered to report critically or accurately and stand up to the powers that be!
Thanks Paul for sharing Andrews essay, very interesting to get a 'behind the scenes' perspective on this insanity.
It's been maddening to see friends, family, colleagues captured by this group-think pro-censor movement. I keep wondering if I am the crazy one, but then I open my copy of The Demon-Haunted World, remind myself of how science ought to be conducted, and soldier on. It is really bizarre how many esteemed scientists, journalists, and intellectuals immediately tossed out the Mertonian Norms in March of 2020.
The creep of "bigotry of low expectations" is unsettling. I would be insulted if I learned that Facebook was protecting me from having my views and claims challenged. I would feel so disrespected to learn that AI scripts were setup to remove me from seeing even the slightest challenge to my ideas without my consent. I would think that would lead to an identity crisis, to learn that all along, the reason I never saw dissent wasn't because no good arguments could be formed, rather, I wasn't allowed to see alternative hypothesis or flaws in my reasoning because Big Tech didn't respect my ability to handle critique.
For the archives, I'm posting two instances Facebook prevented my (I believe) respectful comments from reaching their desired targets. Both auto moderated by Facebook, for anyone who cares to skim through these posts, note how even benign pushback using government sponsored sources triggers censorship.
Example A, The Unbiased Science Podcast shared this post [1] in May of 2021 attempting to explain why California and Florida were seeing such similar results despite having vastly different policies on masks, which they (Jess and Andrea), felt was due to confounders, rather than considering cloth masks didn't prevent viral transmission. Having spent considerable time compiling, reviewing, and occasionally replicating every single mask study shared across traditional and social media the past 2 years [2], I thought I would politely point out to them that the studies they relied on and cited for mask efficacy, ignored the very same confounders they used to explain why California and Florida were having such similar outcomes despite masking.
As a professional, I would hate to be spreading studies of such poor quality, and I assumed that as professional science influencers perhaps they hadn't had the time to recreate the results of the Kansas and Tennessee mask studies since originally published, because if they had they would see the claims made within collapsed be re-running the results a few months later. Since I had that time, thought I would share, but Facebook wouldn't even give them the courtesy to be challenged. They both continue to promote masking, and I have to wonder, how much of their passion for masking might have been tempered were they allowed to have their views challenged early on, rather than Big Tech ensuring the data dredged studies they reposted never saw sunlight?
Screenshots of my moderated reply FB deemed too dangerous: https://imgur.com/a/a9zjkr3
Example B, A close friend had shared an article from MSM in August of 2021 (probably NYT, maybe WaPa), lamenting that the reason vaccinated people are getting infected was because variants were driven by unvaccinated people, and had everyone gotten vaccinated these variants wouldn't have been able to penetrate the vaccine.
Again, Facebook felt my friend must be too stupid to handle another hypothesis, so prevented him from looking at some CDC links and comments from Michael Osterholm that countered this idea. In this case I appealed the FB censor decision, a week later they said appeal accepted and it was their mistake, but my original posts still never appeared in that thread which my friend confirmed.
My dangerous post found here: https://imgur.com/a/rcK0HPg
It's so silly and sad. All of this.
_________________
[1] https://www.facebook.com/unbiasedscipod/posts/pfbid02Dej4HR6udV9JPwWGALpnJDHAgrCgMp7x6MbvzVj7imAg7ZR56t6iQbYkW5NVYX5ml
[2] My personal collection of all mask studies, begins with the 70 YLE shared as "settled science" and continued from there.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ahaJui6Af0kGYMwHgAtnKCE6-bHbCLxnrQxuMC0kygA/edit?usp=sharing
https://censorednews.substack.com/p/my-livelihood-is-under-threat-for
Thanks. Please keep reading.
I also wonder about Facebook's algorithms. Whenever I post a funny meme on my homepage, I get quite a few reactions. But whenever I occasionally post something more serious, usually about scientific censorship...crickets. I don't know if this is because a) people are not interested in serious content, b) people are afraid to react to what might be considered Covid skepticism, or c) the algorithm is preventing these posts from being seen unless people visit my homepage directly.
So far the only post of mine that Facebook has yanked was a funny meme about Trump advising people to drink bleach. This post was removed by Facebook TWO YEARS after I posted it, and they reversed their decision when I appealed. The funniest thing was their reason for pulling the post: it might encourage people to engage in dangerous self-harm. That's a whole joke all by itself.
Facebook wouldn't let me post any comments about covid from ANY source. I was just trying to post CDC links, but fb ate them all - probably close to 100. Sometimes it let me post screenshots of the info, tho.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the centralization of the internet into facebook and twitter is at the heart of the problem. It's too tempting for censors and basically requires robot moderators, and robots are very bad at moderating.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1510314535671922689
Scientific censorship (beginning with natural immunity) was the first step in the process that turned me into a recovering liberal. If I quoted every paragraph that struck me as exceptionally well-phrased, I would end up quoting the entire article. This articulates brilliantly many of my feelings. Thank you.
Just FYI, liberals and leftists are not the same thing. People on the left in western countries are very pro freedom of speech and anti-censorship. Think old-school ACLU. We have historically been the primary targets of censorship. Still are a lot of times. Now it's not JUST us, tho.
Yes. We’ve been hijacked. Maybe this is how old school conservatives felt after the religious right hijacked them in the 80’s?
Don't know if you're in the US or not – I was speaking from a US perspective. From something eugyppius wrote a while back, it appears that political labels don't apply the same way in Europe as they do in the US. At any rate, for "recovering liberal" in my statement you could just as easily say "recovering from tribalism".
No one is more committed to free inquiry and dissent than I am. Most of your article makes sense. But not all. When you refer to vaccination as violating bodily "autonomy", then I question your reasoning and principles. The notion that in the middle of a pandemic that is killing millions an individual can decide whether or not to cooperate in minimizing deaths is not liberty but irresponsibility. Vaccination for many childhood diseases has been mandatory for nearly a century. No one questioned the need for it. It was always understood that some might suffer adverse reactions but this is true of all drugs, everywhere on earth. The notion that an individual can make moral decisions suiting herself but potentially harming many others is like allowing armed criminals loose and hoping they behave themselves. Your personal judgment of how we dealt with public health and minimizing deaths is not the basis for public policy. You have no right to carry a disease and be allowed free contact with other people. You would be committing a criminal act. Putting your own concept of liberty ahead of social responsibility and sound medical practice is not autonomy but anarchy. The mistakes of doctors and government are not intentional and sometimes there will be faulty judgment or errors. But personal responsibility for acts with wide public consequences that can lead to deaths is MANDATORY. Get your head together. You are not the emperor of the world, and your personal judgement doesn't override that of others who look to government to protect their health and welfare. Or do you not think this is the responsibility of government?
Because the vaccine did not stop transmission -- and this was obvious to anyone who could read by June of 2021 -- my decision whether to get vaccinated is no more your or anyone else's business than my decision to get a colonoscopy. Same with cloth masks, as anyone who has used a respirator in a woodshop can tell you (unless you think viruses are bigger than the wood dust I invariably find in my mouth and nostrils after working in the shop).
As for relying on a monolithic government to protect my health and welfare, what if that government is wrong (or worse, subject to dubious motivations)? It's a good question because in this case the authorities were wrong about so many things, and no one was allowed to challenge them or suggest alternative approaches! The Great Barrington signatories were never debated, simply demonized and dismissed . . . and now we know they were right. And health authorities drunk with power refused to weigh the downsides of their policies (which were horrific) with the benefits (which were questionable), unlike how we approach virtually all other social or political questions. How can you or anyone else possibly defend this disastrous record, in the autumn of 2022?
Civil liberty concerns aside, that's not how you run public health to achieve good outcomes.
Science is the practice of debunking accept wisdom, not circling the wagons and defending it from all quarters.
While I can think of a scenario where your argument would make sense — a genuine pandemic of a genuinely dangerous disease, as bad as, or worse than, the reported 30% death rate from the medieval black plague —this wasn't it. It was pointed out in spring 2020, by the respected Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford, that the infection death rate had been greatly exaggerated. It was very clear by mid-2021 that the vaccines were not sterilizing vaccines as had been promised, and that they weren't preventing transmission.
Very early in 2020 we were all scared and had no idea what was really happening. We were terrified by videos coming from China (now known to be fake) of people dying on the street. We were told incessantly that if we got sick we would probably die, and that only the promised vaccines would save us. Unfortunately, the thinking of many people about Covid was calcified during this period. It doesn't help that dissenting voices were demonized and censored, which is still going on, witness the recent law in California muzzling doctors.
What I wish more people would ask themselves is, Why was all this censorship necessary? Who stands to benefit? Unfortunately, most people either don't know or won't acknowledge the existence of this censorship. For myself, I did acquiesce to the first shots, reluctantly, so that my neighbors would be more comfortable with me. A decision which I now regret.
I came down with Covid in the beginning of April 2020. I’m not young, and I have a rare disease, so I was elated to come through it relatively unscathed and make a complete recovery. I was a nurse in my younger days, so I felt confident in my natural immunity. To be safe, I had my antibody levels tested every 2 months—same test being used to determine the efficacy of the vaccines. Always sky high, off the charts. In November of 2021 I was mandated by my (academic) employer to get vaccinated, and despite a letter requesting exemption from my doctor, my exemption was denied. I was stunned. Not only was my natural immunity intact, but the doctor-patient relationship had been violated. I did not get the mRNA vaccine, and fortunately, I had no side effects. But this has crushed any faith I had in the health care system. I’m lucky to have a good doctor, but throughout the pandemic I’ve seen their struggle with what went on. I really thought when the research started making its way into the mainstream psyche, there would be some sort of public contrition on the part of those screaming for "concentration camps" and expulsion from society for the unvaccinated.
Nope.
Did you actually suffer some ill effects from the shots?
Nothing obvious aside from a headache. But from this point forward, anything bad that happens, I can't help wondering if it's all those spikes floating around.
"Vaccination for many childhood diseases has been mandatory for nearly a century."
In the US, but not in the UK or most of Europe. Also, the countries without mandates have higher vaccine uptake.
Has anyone had any luck in re-engaging the subject of censorship. I have tread lightly as it is quite alienating and I do love my husband…who would like us to have friends. But when can I have normal discourse with my once intelligent friends. I’ve tried a few times, but it’s like they have no idea, and I’m beginning to think they won’t until npr is willing to address the issue.
(I had an adverse reaction to the vaccine, as did another in our small friend group of 15-myocarditis and bullous phemphigis.
It honestly blows my mind that my close friends who still are my friends, think I’m blinded by bias and obsessed with the pandemic because I was one of the rare individuals who suffered adverse reactions.
I’m a therapist, I’ve always questioned the pharmaceutical industry (they loved it back when) I went to the new school (critical thinking was our bread and butter) I do my homework on everything from my kids to my dog, and that industry was my gateway drug… to understanding the corruption.
Anyway, maybe Ill send this article…or wait for npr, or maybe someone else has an approach they would care to share🙏
I've been concentrating lately on how to talk to people in the "other" camp without alienating them. Gently inserting bugs into their ear that will hopefully make them aware of their cognitive dissonance. Haranguing and accusation absolutely are counterproductive, people immediately go into defensive Shields Up mode and their ears turn off.
Yesterday I discovered a YouTube channel that has some very good techniques, which some might view as manipulative but actually are ways of connecting with someone who disagrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/@Charismaoncommand
Thank you, will definitely check it out. It’s funny I thought for sure that when “once” conspiracy theories surfaced as legit inquiry or even acknowledged truths, that there would be this wave among the “other” camp to start questioning the narrative and see where else they were blinded, but that does not appear to be the case. Instead like we are dealing with a large scale personality disorder. Even when they come to believe what was once “right wing extremist thinking” they conveniently forget to show respect to those who helped get the information to the forefront. I do not include my meager attempts, rather those of you writing these articles and doing the journalism that allows us the gift of true critical thinking. If there is one thing I’ve learned is that my children will be well versed in Socratic questioning.
Your last paragraph is the best summation of the whole Covid Planned Demic in my book: Pandemic information controls and restrictions on free speech had real world consequences that contributed to poorer, not better, public health outcomes. By neglecting to address corporate and government pandemic censorship, the digital rights movement failed in its core mission of securing online freedom of expression.
Once we give up our freedoms, any of those freedoms from digital rights to personal body autonomy rights, for whatever reason we are stepping out onto the slippery slope of tyranny that endangers all of us in terrible ways! But when we give up those rights based mainly on FEAR to give us some modicum of SAFETY, as the person references above in the scolding that we have no personal right to walk around with sickness to infect humanity from a disease with a 99.975% survival rate, then it is easy to see that those in power will continually use the FEAR PORN to maintain their power and silence any dissent in every journalistic medium!!!
The biggest problem I have with everything that we were told by every government, their agencies, the WHO most scientists and Doctors during this planned Demic was just plain wrong!!! What did they get right??? And yet they keep insisting we may someday soon need to go back to masking, which never did nor will work; social distancing, which we all now know 20 feet apart is no better than 6 feet apart for an airborne viral illness transmission; and lockdowns which have been proven on many fronts to not work and are in fact more dangerous and deadly than the virus we are trying to protect ourselves from!!! And with the mRNA jabs what did we find out? They don’t prevent transmission, stop transmission, work anywhere near as effectively as we were told and have serious if not deadly side effects when we were told repeatedly by everyone from The President of The United States to your local Nurse Practitioner that they are 100% safe and won’t hurt you at all; trust us!!!
And yet today the MSM continues to hold all of the Cast of Characters, from Fauci to Walensky to Albert Bora of Pfizer, as the unquestionable experts and people with the final say on what we should all listen too!
We have all been dealt a very dirty hand by every journalist from every medium that drunk this Kool-aid and has not offered to report critically or accurately and stand up to the powers that be!