In this interview with James Jenneman on his Blackbird podcast, I discuss how mainstream narratives on matters related to the COVID-19 pandemic are propagandistic in nature, serving to manufacture public consent for authoritarian policy responses that are supposedly based on "the science" but which rather depart from sensible, evidence-based approaches.
Topics we covered include:
- What I do and how I respond to the argumentative rhetorical question “You’re not a scientist so why should anyone listen to you?”
- My own experiences trying to get help from doctors who were totally ignorant and practice “medicine” without keeping up with the scientific literature
- How the medical establishment is observably practicing medicine decades behind the science
- How I take the objective approach of criticizing both sides, such as debunking the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated
- How PCR tests have been misused to perpetrate institutionalized scientific fraud in the way that “COVID-19” cases and deaths are counted
- How the argument can easily be made that the lockdown measures have done far more harm than good even if we accept all of the lockdown advocates’ arguments
- How numerous studies have found no association between extreme lockdown measures like stay-at-home orders and business closures and reduced COVID-19 mortality
- Why state mask mandates are a non-evidenced-based policy
- Why I would willingly wear a mask in circumstances where doing so would be appropriate as a courtesy to others but how I refuse to act out of irrational fear and wear one in circumstances where it is completely pointless
- Why mandates are logically not about public health but about control, and how our fundamental human rights are under assault with totalitarian policies
- How “trusted” health authorities like the CDC demonstrably lie about the science
- How the endgame and exit strategy of the authoritarian lockdown measures has from the start been mass vaccination, with the implication being that vaccine mandates or “immunity passports” represent an imminent threat to our health and our freedom
- Why absent randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing long-term health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, any claim that a vaccine is “safe and effective” is completely meaningless and unscientific
- The difference between acute “adverse events” researchers watch for in prelicensure trials and long-term “non-specific effects” of vaccines that the trials are not designed to detect
- Why public vaccine policy with its one-size-fits-all represents a dangerously extremist position, and why the moderate, sensible position is that any decision whether to vaccinate must be made on the basis of an individual risk-benefit analysis
- Why informed consent for vaccinations is not happening in the US
- Why the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is of lab origin is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, not a “conspiracy theory”
- Why the World Health Organization’s so-called “investigation” into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a total farce
- How countries that implemented authoritarian lockdown measures strayed from decades of established science on how to deal with a pandemic
- How the lockdown measures have done nothing to protect those at highest risk from COVID-19 and are also discriminatory against the underprivileged lower-income members of society
