False Binaries that 'Limit the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinion' in the COVID-19 Debate and Perpetuate Lies Told by The Powers That Be (Part 1)
If debates are "very boring" it's because the Official Narrative has not yet lost control
“All serious people and academics now agree with the Covid contrarian outcasts from 2020. This makes the debates very boring.”
This sentiment, expressed by Polimath, presents an opportunity to highlight the central 'False Binary' in the COVID-19 debates—one that discourages people from considering questions and perspectives that could unravel the Global Pandemic yarn that was spun by the WHO and the countries that endorsed the agency’s claims in 2020.
This article is Part 1; Part 2 will show and describe a fuller “set” of false binaries that have dominated dialogue and herded opinions into controllable “pens.”
Limited Spectrum of Acceptable Opinion
In The Common Good (1998), Noam Chomsky said,
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
Chomsky’s brilliant observation characterizes very well how agencies, government officials, and other vested parties discouraged the public from questioning whether a viral or disease threat existed in early 2020—let alone one that warranted a response.
It’s fair to say that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic declaration saw widespread passivity and instantaneous obedience unlike anything most of us had ever witnessed.
One strategy for securing this compliance was the use of false binaries.1 A series of manufactured 'dilemmas'—either explicitly stated or subtly reinforced—emerged through directed messaging, social media algorithms, and both mainstream and alternative media. These binaries set the boundaries of ‘acceptable’ opinion, created the illusion of 'lively debate,' and provided a controlled space for critical and dissenting views to exist without truly challenging the dominant narrative.
Such an approach is far more effective than silencing all or every kind of dissent because it acknowledges and leverages human nature — our curiosity, our instinct to ask questions, and our ability to sense when something isn’t quite right - while keeping conversations within predefined and tolerable limits.
Meanwhile, “the presuppositions of the system” - in this case, that there was a global pandemic involving a new spreading pathogen causative of a novel and unique disease - were not only “reinforced by the limits” but rewarded. Many (but not all) of those who championed these assumptions gained personally, socially, financially, and professionally.
The views most threatening to the Official Narrative were (and still are) relegated to the “fringes” and ignored by both sides - including by the more ‘dissident’ side - which ultimately benefits The Powers that Be and the lies they continue to tell (e.g., a shot was needed to mitigate or treat a new illness).
Pro Official Narrative, Permitted (Promoted) Dissent, Off Limits
It’s perhaps clearer now than ever to see that
many "contrarian" views are, in fact, Permitted/Promoted Dissent,
there is little to no material difference between such dissent and those who are “Pro”Official Narrative, and
debate between Permitted Dissent and Out-of-Bounds Dissent continues to be discouraged.
The most obvious example is the Lab Origin (via leak/release) versus Natural Origin (via wet market, bat cave) proposition.2 A third possibility—that SARS-CoV-2, whatever it may be, is neither a novel nor unique pathogen responsible for a new disease—remains off-limits, as we know all too well from first-hand experience.
Controversies about “origin” involving Permitted Dissent and Pro Narrative factions - like this one - feel contrived or pointless because they are two sides of the same “spreading virus” story and protect a central False Binary from an Off-Limits view.
A novel, risk-additive virus /disease is spreading and could be slowed or stopped. (Pro Narrative)
A novel, risk-additive virus/disease is spreading that could not be slowed/stopped. (Permitted/Promoted Dissent)
There is no novel, risk-additive virus [or disease] spreading and therefore nothing to slow/stop. (Off-Limits/Out of Bounds)
With very few exceptions, most of the public did not hear from scientists, doctors, or officials who were espousing the Off-Limits perspective in the first three to four months of 2020. The notion wasn’t elevated or allowed; it was outright censored. Even today, it is “out of bounds” in mainstream contrarian circles.
The gap between the Pro Narrative and Permitted Dissent views is much narrower than the chasm between Permitted Dissent and the Off-Limits perspective.
If there was no sudden-spreading virus, it changes everything. If there is no such thing as a pandemic, it likewise changes everything.
A Pro-Narrative view says, “We didn’t do enough or do it in time to stop the Last Pandemic and must do better in the Next Pandemic.”
A Permitted Dissent view says, “We did too much and to the wrong people in the Last Pandemic and must do better in the Next Pandemic.”
The Off-Limits view says, “Nothing that was done was necessary. There was no viral threat and no pandemic. Pandemics aren’t possible, and preparing for them is a waste of time and resources.”
Next Pandemic, No Pandemic, and Still No Room for Debate
A Next Pandemic perspective is held by many prominent Covid Contrarians. In our view, endorsing pandemics as once and future phenomena enables the pandemic/bioterrorism preparedness complex and its attendant digital ID/bio-surveillance goals. If pandemics aren't "a thing"—as we and others who stand "Out of Bounds" argue—there's no need to discuss future pandemics. The task of defanging those who seek to fabricate such events resolves itself. Many Permitted Dissenters, however, are left having to explain why the "evil scientists" would be unwilling or unable to create something far more dangerous next time.
Taking it further, if respiratory illness has nothing to do with viruses that spread between people or circulate in the air - i.e., "It's all been a pack of lies"3 - then numerous political, scientific, and medical endeavors beyond ‘pandemic prep’ deserve no time, money, resources, or research whatsoever.
We believe there was no pandemic.
There was theatre.
There was propaganda.
There was Grade-A psychological warfare.
There was Democide.
There was fraud.
That perspective is very different, and quite contrary, to what many of the “Covid contrarian outcasts from 2020”, as Polimath put it, now believe.4 The debate has become boring - because debate is still being suppressed and significant differences of opinion minimized or snubbed.
Vinay Prasad is correct in saying, “We have no idea what the majority view is and which view is ‘contrary’ to that.”
Prasad is referring to scientists, but it would be wise for analysts and citizens of all stripes to reflect on why distinctions among perspectives are hard to discern and whether, after five years, we are still exactly where 'They' want us to be.
UPDATE: Shorter version with quick examples.
Comments for co-authored articles are now open to all subscribers.
Correction (4 March 2025): We changed “In his book The Common Good (1998), Noam Chomsky wrote…” to “In The Common Good (1998), Noam Chomsky said,” because the book is compiled from transcriptions of David Barsamian’s interviews with Chomsky. Chomsky is attributed as author but we want to be technically correct.
aka, false dilemmas, false dichotomies, either-or fallacies
This false binary is explained well by Jonathan Couey in DRASTIC Founder Renounces Lab Leak Theory of COVID’s Origins (Senger, Dec 2022). See also Virus Origins and Gain (Claim) of Function Research (Neil & Engler, May 2024) and Thinking About Lab Leak…(Hockett, 2024)
Phil Collins. (1981). “In the Air Tonight.” Face Value.
It’s also different from things we used to believe regarding, for example, the spring 2020 mass casualty events in Bergamo and New York and the Great Barrington Declaration. No one was altogether “right” in 2020, as far as we can tell. Most authorities were altogether wrong - and remain unapologetic and unaccountable.
 | A guest post by
|
Thank you both for a fine piece and for making the results of your evaluations clear. It’s very much appreciated, sincerely.
Given no pandemic (& there’s scope I think for productive exchanges on whether any pandemics are possible) it behooves us to point out some deeply unpleasant implications, for example, what the “vaccines” were intended to do.
You are aware of my assessments, which I’d love to be wrong about.
Thank you for a brilliant article. As a pandemic "denier" from day one, I have written many comments on various sites expressing my view and have rarely elicited much response. I had noticed that a number of others that denied the basic narrative were also largely ignored. It has been very frustrating in that regard but now I have a better understanding of why that is so. Thank you for helping me sort that out.