COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Yngvi]

Colonel Douglas Macgregor understands the fundamental dynamic at play among the "Western" elite that everyone else wants to ignore:

Most people understand what is happening; few are brave enough to say it.
I applaud Colonel Macgregor.
We should support this man anyway we can.

Here is another Truthful recent tweet from Col. Macgregor:
https://twitter.com/DougAMacgregor/s...60154394882049

There are three branches of governemnt:
Raytheon
BlackRock
Pfizer

Can this guy run for president?

[Jenni]

Colonel Douglas Macgregor understands the fundamental dynamic at play among the "Western" elite that everyone else wants to ignore:

The question that nags at me is why, though? Is it because they can be controlled easier? Is it a matter of profit potential vs demographics? I feel like motive would help us understand the path that will be taken towards that and where we might can derail that path. Is it just that right now the people most in line with the political and social engineers are those people?
The why bothers me.

[anticausal]

Ten Dishonest Centrist Liberal Debate Tactics

2. Tactical Libertarianism

Second tactic is tactical libertarianism. This galling tactic is when a centrist professes that the only real objection they have to something is the use of state force, as if they were a libertarian. This was a tactic employed by certain people recently when we debated the traditional gender roles. The line was, "yes, we agree with traditional gender roles. We just object to the state enforcing it."

Now there is a surefire way to tell if someone is a genuine libertarian, and that is to bring up freedom of association, and in particular the forced desegregation of the 1960s where the federal army was used to march kids to school at gunpoint. If they support these things (as it turned out these particular people I'm talking about did), then they do not actually care a jot if the state is used to enforce morality, if it is a moral they share.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The question that nags at me is why, though? Is it because they can be controlled easier? Is it a matter of profit potential vs demographics? I feel like motive would help us understand the path that will be taken towards that and where we might can derail that path. Is it just that right now the people most in line with the political and social engineers are those people?
The why bothers me.

I have asked myself and several others this very question several dozen times recently.

[MWM]

It is fascinating listening to Wakefield himself discuss his ordeal, especially in light of the scandals that we were witness to throughout the last three years.
Andrew Wakefield The Original "Anti-vaxxer Quack" Or An Ethical Doctor Way Ahead Of His Time? - Doc Malik

Wakefield is an extremely bad example to hold up in support of any criticism of vaccines, because he is vulnerable to one of the same core criticisms levelled against the vaccine manufacturers and their regulatory bodies: financial conflict of interest. Even if Wakefield's research is completely correct, he was paid $800,000 by lawyers for an anti-vaccine advocacy group to undertake it. This means that if you want to make the very reasonable criticism that vaccine R&D and approval are swimming in financial conflicts of interest, you cannot at the same time use Wakefield's work as a further argument against those processes.

I imagine this is at least partly why Robert Kennedy Jr, despite bringing all sorts of other highly controversial evidence against the vaccine industry and defending other personae non gratae like Peter Duesberg, doesn't mention Wakefield even though Wakefield's evidence is some of the most familiar to the general public.

[conradbc]

I have asked myself and several others this very question several dozen times recently.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Browndog]

Is the Cover-Up damn finally breaking?

Damning new evidence reveals what leading scientists really thought of COVID origins - YouTube

This is fresh from Sky News Australia: They lied about the Lab Leak Origens

I haven't seen anything like this from mainstream media to date.

[Gilead]

A very important discussion between two prominent civil rights activists of our current time in history.
The Courts Are Our Tool for Keeping Our Rights - America Out Loud News

Dr. Harvey Risch is joined by Attorney Aaron Siri, who is a civil rights attorney and the managing partner of Siri & Glimstad, a firm with over 50 professionals with a large and robust vaccine practice, including handling vaccine injuries, exemptions, and policy work.

Mr. Siri has been involved with many national cases involving covid related restrictions and mandates, including challenging mandates for air travel, companies with over 100 employees, and members of the air force and Army, as well as suing the FDA for the release of the documents it relied upon to license Pfizer and Moderna’s covid vaccines.

Today we discuss the profound destructiveness of public censorship and how we regain the open society that the Founders of the US constructed through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well, the role of government mismanagement and who more specifically was responsible for that mismanagement of the pandemic.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Climate Pseudoscience: Nobel Physics Laureate 2022 Slams 'Climate Emergency' Narrative as "Dangerous Corruption of Science" – The Daily Sceptic

The co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize has launched an excoriating attack on the ‘climate emergency’ narrative, calling it a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people”. Dr. John Clauser notes that misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”.

Dr. Clauser is one of the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, the study of matter and light at a sub-atomic and atomic level. In 2010 he was awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics, considered the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel. His comments will help cast further doubt on the obvious falsehood that 99% of scientists believe humans cause all or most climate change. Physicists along with chemists play a dominant role in investigating the science surrounding climate, which at its core focuses on heat exchange and the behaviour of atmospheric gases.

In turn, continued Clauser, the climate pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies and environmentalists. “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s largest population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science,” he added.

Dr. Clauser is not the first Nobel physics prize-winner to challenge the ‘settled’ scientific and political narrative of climate change. The World Climate Declaration has been signed by around 300 climate professors, and declares: “There is no climate emergency.” The lead signatory is the Nobel laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate models are said to be “not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effect, the Declaration states. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science, it says.

[Satch12879]

Wakefield is an extremely bad example to hold up in support of any criticism of vaccines, because he is vulnerable to one of the same core criticisms levelled against the vaccine manufacturers and their regulatory bodies: financial conflict of interest. Even if Wakefield's research is completely correct, he was paid $800,000 by lawyers for an anti-vaccine advocacy group to undertake it. This means that if you want to make the very reasonable criticism that vaccine R&D and approval are swimming in financial conflicts of interest, you cannot at the same time use Wakefield's work as a further argument against those processes.

I imagine this is at least partly why Robert Kennedy Jr, despite bringing all sorts of other highly controversial evidence against the vaccine industry and defending other personae non gratae like Peter Duesberg, doesn't mention Wakefield even though Wakefield's evidence is some of the most familiar to the general public.

People try to criticize pharma and regulators for financial conflicts of interest, but because they have the power, those criticisms are laughed at.

No, I think we should drop all pretense of impartiality. The bad guys don't care.