I believe Bobbie Anne Cox is a Brownstone fellow. I’ll mention this on her Substack since censoring this inquiry of yours is patently absurd.
They are right to focus on the tyranny aspect but the baseless foundation for all the axioms, as I call them, that TPTB put forward on every subject needs to be exposed, or at least discussed. If people can come to understand that this is all a self-serving set of lies about zoonotic disease spread, deadly climate change produced by meat consumption etc., and the threat of domestic terrorism by people who just want to mind their own business and be left alone, and so on, we can start to unravel this collective slumber and throw off their yoke.
It seems like a lonely battle your group is waging but it is vital and thanks for doing it.
1) Stuck in my craw for some time is this line—this assertion—from Bobbie Anne Cox:
"[It's] fact that the Constitution does not have an emergency exemption."[1]
The majority of her articles are paywalled/locked, so I can't say how much she has explored this, frankly sophomoric, assertion. Lawyer she may be, but her "tantrum" does not equate sound legal analysis.
As we have seen (and some of us—such as me—have researched at some depth), apparently the U.S. Constitution DOES have an emergency exception. Has Cox gone/does Cox go into any depth re the Tenth Amendment/State Constitutions (or the functionally-useless Ninth Amendment) in relation to her "no emergency exception" statement? Does she address actual SCOTUS (and other Courts') jurisprudence related to the Great Scamdemic? I don't know but I haven't seen it.
My point for purposes here is that I question whether one should look to Ms. Cox as some brilliant legal mind or realistic/useful advocate against "lockdowns." We can appreciate & applaud her heroic efforts re some aspects of scamdemic law (such as gross overreach in New York) without ascribing her credit/acclaim that may be undue.
2) I, an outsider with an opinion (a reasonably informed opinion, but just an opinion nonetheless) do not quite understand the angle that Hockett-Engler-Neil (H-E-N) settled on for their would-be writeup for Daily Sceptic and/or Brownstone. Why does it need to be framed as a debate between H-E-N and Ridley-Chan? This is not the angle (and I am using the word "angle" as mostly a journalism term) I would have taken/I would have proposed/I would have advised. Based on what I see (and I fully admit that I may not be fully comprehending the situation), it is not unreasonable to me that J. Tucker declined the opportunity as presented to him. (I don't want to deal with Will Jones/Daily Sceptic here. It's too much. So will restrict my point/s to Tucker-Brownstone.)
THAT SAID, Jeffrey Tucker's thinking is manifestly muddled. He is proof that an individual can be exceptionally erudite and demonstrate remarkably good leadership, character, and accomplishment, and yet still think/speak what amounts to gibberish (if not worse, in the direction of bad faith). This incident (presented here in "Question Everything" [Except That Thing]") is hardly the first time Mr. Tucker does not seem to know if he is afoot or on horseback.
Just yesterday I read Brownstone's post at its website about the upcoming "Resistance" Gala [2]. Choice excerpts/quotes for purposes here include:
> Brownstone Institute was founded to come to terms with this awesome shift from freedom to tyranny, through research, publishing, events, and fellowships to many intellectual dissidents….
> Featured in the program are many of the most effective thought leaders in the last four years, the people who … have a record of speaking truth to power.
Does Jeffrey Tucker grasp what he is RESISTING? He speaks of "enlightenment values" but fails to question the rock-bottom bases of the scamdemic. What if it was all BULL__IT? What if it was all (or largely) a ploy to establish vaccination as a way of life—a FASCISTIC whole-of-government/society/civilization way of life? What if the powers-that-be (and their useful enablers—witting and unwitting) Declared a highly-questionable pandemic and orchestrated a shockingly-complex psychological operation (top-down and/or compartmentalized) to exploit and conquer the non-"ruling class" citizens/peoples/persons across the world? What if a huge part of the scamdemic was simply motivated by sinecures & money-making?
Thanks for commenting. I'll address these comments here and part 2 in reply to those comments.
1) I agree that emergency exceptions ARE legal and that the axiom about the Constitution have no emergency provisions is manifestly false and PR only. What I have said is that there is no provision for a DISEASE-SPREAD emergency. At least in Illinois, the potential situations for emergency declaration do NOT include "something is spreading from person to person." We have a robust communicable disease code and the specifics of those codes were VIOLATED. My main concern with the term "lockdown" is that it's NOT a concept in federal/state communicable disease laws/codes, as far as I can tell. Laws around quarantine/modified quarantine and isolation/modified isolation - among other things - were broken.
2) I understand what you're saying about the approach we decided to take. It was in the. context of a conversation between the three of us about a related topic and was far more organic than "strategic" in the sense that we didn't huddle up and say, "Okay, what's the best plan for getting something about our shared views in DS/BI right now"? Both outlets have published or linked to articles by one or more of us, so we weren't trying to "score" with them per se. It was more about a potential neutral third party who might be willing to host a critique and rejoinder of one dichotomy the three of us agree is problematic. It's also something of a follow up to the Jay Bhattacharya "Next Pandemic" tweet and JE's request that his name being taken off the GBD, the Stanford "Next Pandemic" conference, etc.
3) Jeffrey declining the idea isn't unreasonable, given the direction BI has taken (which they are entitled to take) and the brand of resistance they prefer.. DS's response is more perplexing because they are more of a news site AND because their name and tagline convey a commitment to skepticism, questions, etc. That said, both organizations repeatedly highlight how "censored" dissenting viewpoints were in 2020+, so it seems odd for both to articulate such a strong commitment to points of a view about questions that are far from "settled."
I confess it feels a bit like trying to tell someone, "Do you know who Luke Skywalker's real father is???" and the person being like, "I've heard it might be Darth Vader, but Uncle Owen raised him, and there are credible rumors Luke's father might be Obi-Wan Kenobi, so I'm sticking with that for now and trying to stay focused on what the Empire might do next."
TY, and I enjoyed (lol'd) the Star Wars analogy. And "brand of resistance" is "chef's kiss." I'd comment more about what you've written (both replies), but will spare you my riveting insights and just say it's all worth reading at least 3 times.
I need to stay tuned/keep listening. I try pretty hard to understand "everything," but I don't presently "get" why BI/Tucker or DS/Jones would be invested in lab leak -- one way or the other. Maybe I can't relate because ultimately I'm primarily interested in whatever is true. Maybe I'm too simpleminded🤔.
I can't write an exposition here (though I have much more I could say). I have closely watched/analyzed Mr. Tucker for several years. There's plenty of evidence that he is inconsistent if not clueless about a number of topics such as limited government/Constitutionally-limited governance, the climate change con, the role of and purported need for the institution/discipline of Public Health (PH)—especially to involve itself in common respiratory contagions (ILIs, CLIs), and even the nonsense usage of the very terms "public health" and "global health." He also has been one of the staunchest insisters that the policy-response to "the covid event" betrayed thoughtful/reasonable/honorable/legitimate PH that had been established prior to 2020—even though he literally knows better but just can't seem to take it to the next level and not revert to his default.
Brownstone (the "Brownstone brain trust" as I've taken to calling it) has become an establishment-adjacent clique. It may not be the regime/establishment that we tend to think of when we conceive of the forces that dominate our lives and are perfectly happy to "suffocate" and "dispose" of "us" faceless nameless mass-formation masses, but it's a socially-acceptable group of (overly-popular) "leaders." Look at the list of featured attendees/celebrities for the Resistance Gala (footnote #2 above).
Whom among these persons is going to resist "the next pandemic"? Can we look forward to, for example, Dr. Desmet diagnosing all of us little people with his invented psychosis while he refuses to diagnose the overlords' mass-formation psychopathy/psychopathology which is plain as day since early 2020? Will Chris Martenson be encouraging face-mask use because of the threat of fomites? Will Bret "Bert" Weinstein ride in on a white horse and mesmerize the audience with his superior knowledge and intellect about everything? Will ANY of the esteemed Panelists mention the "f" word: influenza—or whether so-called vaccines were ever warranted whatsoever for any of these seasonal and "pandemic-potential" threats that "plague" humankind?
I've written TOO much, and I am hoping Ms. Jessica won't be too ticked at me, so I have to wrap this up.
Conclusion (though admittedly I haven't fully fleshed out the above):
(A) Hockett et al should frame their proposed contribution "speaking truth to power" differently. For example, if NYC Spring 2020 is questionable/unbelievable, then all else follows. The import of this is earth shattering. I do have additional thoughts/insights/opinions about the angle/angles I would take, and I will expound upon request. I am a former editor of no particular noteworthiness, if that helps.
(B) Jeffrey Tucker and Brownstone are highbrow, barely-alt Establishment. Though it didn't start out that way, the clique of so-called dissenters has become a mutual admiration society (when it's not a Support Group) of message manipulators.
When Mr. Tucker implies that Brownstone does not have a tailored/controlled/established agenda (that apparently cannot countenance respectable insurgent dissension from the "pandemic denier" contingent), it is/he is disingenuous. It is a club and "you" aren't in it—UNLESS you agree that PH writ large is a societal good that just lost its way, vaccination/drugging of the healthy "herd" of human beings is a valid/laudable pursuit of Governments, anything goes as long as its efficacy is evidence-based and cost-benefit analyzed by persons with MPH after their names, and the featured Resistance Gala participants are actual resisters who are going to make the next pandemic kinder & gentler.
The fact that Brownstone as an organization has assembled a constellation of core contributors, fellows, et al that it thinks are best-suited/-positioned to articulate and advance its core values, agenda, etc. is expected and desirable in the world of such non-profits (at least in the U.S.). Collateral Global has done the same thing.
The NYC spring 2020 event has always been and will probably always be my entry point. It is, in my opinion, the best "No pandemic" evidence there is. I won't speak for JE and MN but we all have our regular lives and other individual concerns/areas of focus. There is no organization that binds us together. It's ad hoc and we don't have weekly strategy meetings. :)
FWIW, I replied to Mr. Tucker's email, he to mine, and me to his response. I haven't posted those emails because they don't make much difference materially and only showcase further that we are not on the same page.
That "is what it is "and I am not mad about it, even though I find it ironic that an organization so concerned with how dissenting voices were suppressed - and which has readily published so many different views - has now decided the Lab Origin hypothesis is off limits for now.
This narrow form of thinking seems to me to be similar to the ludicrous “science is settled” argument put forward by mainly the leftist hoax crowd. Shameful that others are now falling into that lie. I don’t see how they can latch on to any position regarding the “virus pandemic” era when there is so little truth, or facts yet available and seemingly many falsehoods propagated. From a non scientific standpoint, the last five years have shown us that if dissenting theories are forbidden for discussion and censored by the governing administration, scientific establishment, medical industry, and propaganda media, then there is likely a great deal of merit to those dissenting opinions, and the censors have a great deal to lose from the truth.
Will Jones is free to say things like "any such articles have to stay on the right side of the line and not involve what we would regard as a denial of the key role played by the virus," but I don't see how he or the DS staff can say they live up to their moniker or tagline....
This post that shows that the Dissident Establishment is yet corralling people into one side or the other of the dialectic. It feels to me the same as when RFK, Jr. was subsumed into the Trump campaign. Make America Healthy again is suddenly all about good food. All talk of Vaxxx bad seems to have vanished. I now have no real choice in the election; either will continue to support the notion of bad viruses out there, which you all have been undermining in a meaningful way, to the chagrin of those who would continue to control by fear. I'd be interested in having you also challenge the other "medical freedom" leaders, like Kirsch, Malone, Kory, to have a debate with you on this subject. Regardless of who might win such a debate, the willingness to pick up the gauntlet could be an interesting tell.
Thanks to each of you for your steady scientific work. I agree with the above that the NYC investigation needs to proceed and the Jenga blocks will fall if it was theater. Until we see the body count, I don’t see why it is an unreasonable position to hold that we do not have the evidence that we met even the old definition of an epidemic, let alone a pandemic.
Qui bono is always the question and apparently asking reasonable scientific questions is threatening many. It’s not possible to induce fear again across the population if the curtain is pulled back and people can see the wizened little wizard pulling levers.
From an experiential standpoint in primary care there are things that don’t add up. I witnessed three patients in a practice of a couple thousand who were ill in 2020 with what was labelled COVID—note: both hospitalized first, the diagnosis not made in the office. The set of symptoms given initially by the CDC was not distinguishable from any other undistinguished ILI. Then it seemed there was added to these many, many more symptoms. ie. Loss of taste and smell, tinnitus, etc. But why was my metropolitan area not flooded with ill people, especially since one of the first ‘cases’ reported and worked up by the CDC was in my city related to travel to China? How could this be a dangerous, very contagious respiratory virus if it could not travel 20 miles across six million people and affect people in my part of the city?
The ‘cases, cases, cases’ are going ‘up,up, up’ simply was not true.
In 2021 after the vax rollout things changed. I asked a physical therapist if I was the only one who felt the population health was declining. For example, it seemed that so many patients’ BPs were elevated in the office, who previously had no history of HTN.
There were so few practices which were open and treating patients, that those of us who were doing so, ended up connecting with patients from great distances; skewing any sense of how many people in our original patient base were ill.
At the very end of 2021, turning the corner into 2022; the presentation of symptoms changed completely. People were not as ill ( it was now a common cold; shifted in 2 weeks time) and whatever-it-was-that-we-referred-to-as-COVID-19 was now a completely different entity in terms of its impact than it had been across 2021. There was a lot of discussion about variants at that time. We don’t test for variants. The PCR was already rubbish, so I ignored the variant discussion.
Did I witness people become gravely ill in 2021?
Was the presentation of symptoms different than ILI of previous years? Yes.
Were we able help people regain their health? Yes. No one who sought help early died.
However—
Why, if this was a respiratory virus infecting ppl did it respect political boundaries, such as the Pennsylvania : NY border?
I would like to have that question thoroughly and scientifically explored.
I believe Bobbie Anne Cox is a Brownstone fellow. I’ll mention this on her Substack since censoring this inquiry of yours is patently absurd.
They are right to focus on the tyranny aspect but the baseless foundation for all the axioms, as I call them, that TPTB put forward on every subject needs to be exposed, or at least discussed. If people can come to understand that this is all a self-serving set of lies about zoonotic disease spread, deadly climate change produced by meat consumption etc., and the threat of domestic terrorism by people who just want to mind their own business and be left alone, and so on, we can start to unravel this collective slumber and throw off their yoke.
It seems like a lonely battle your group is waging but it is vital and thanks for doing it.
All media outlets make choices about what to publish and what not to publish
Yes of course they have that right. I just wish they would reconsider their position.
Same
PART ONE (OF TWO)
1) Stuck in my craw for some time is this line—this assertion—from Bobbie Anne Cox:
"[It's] fact that the Constitution does not have an emergency exemption."[1]
The majority of her articles are paywalled/locked, so I can't say how much she has explored this, frankly sophomoric, assertion. Lawyer she may be, but her "tantrum" does not equate sound legal analysis.
As we have seen (and some of us—such as me—have researched at some depth), apparently the U.S. Constitution DOES have an emergency exception. Has Cox gone/does Cox go into any depth re the Tenth Amendment/State Constitutions (or the functionally-useless Ninth Amendment) in relation to her "no emergency exception" statement? Does she address actual SCOTUS (and other Courts') jurisprudence related to the Great Scamdemic? I don't know but I haven't seen it.
My point for purposes here is that I question whether one should look to Ms. Cox as some brilliant legal mind or realistic/useful advocate against "lockdowns." We can appreciate & applaud her heroic efforts re some aspects of scamdemic law (such as gross overreach in New York) without ascribing her credit/acclaim that may be undue.
2) I, an outsider with an opinion (a reasonably informed opinion, but just an opinion nonetheless) do not quite understand the angle that Hockett-Engler-Neil (H-E-N) settled on for their would-be writeup for Daily Sceptic and/or Brownstone. Why does it need to be framed as a debate between H-E-N and Ridley-Chan? This is not the angle (and I am using the word "angle" as mostly a journalism term) I would have taken/I would have proposed/I would have advised. Based on what I see (and I fully admit that I may not be fully comprehending the situation), it is not unreasonable to me that J. Tucker declined the opportunity as presented to him. (I don't want to deal with Will Jones/Daily Sceptic here. It's too much. So will restrict my point/s to Tucker-Brownstone.)
THAT SAID, Jeffrey Tucker's thinking is manifestly muddled. He is proof that an individual can be exceptionally erudite and demonstrate remarkably good leadership, character, and accomplishment, and yet still think/speak what amounts to gibberish (if not worse, in the direction of bad faith). This incident (presented here in "Question Everything" [Except That Thing]") is hardly the first time Mr. Tucker does not seem to know if he is afoot or on horseback.
Just yesterday I read Brownstone's post at its website about the upcoming "Resistance" Gala [2]. Choice excerpts/quotes for purposes here include:
> Brownstone Institute was founded to come to terms with this awesome shift from freedom to tyranny, through research, publishing, events, and fellowships to many intellectual dissidents….
> Featured in the program are many of the most effective thought leaders in the last four years, the people who … have a record of speaking truth to power.
Does Jeffrey Tucker grasp what he is RESISTING? He speaks of "enlightenment values" but fails to question the rock-bottom bases of the scamdemic. What if it was all BULL__IT? What if it was all (or largely) a ploy to establish vaccination as a way of life—a FASCISTIC whole-of-government/society/civilization way of life? What if the powers-that-be (and their useful enablers—witting and unwitting) Declared a highly-questionable pandemic and orchestrated a shockingly-complex psychological operation (top-down and/or compartmentalized) to exploit and conquer the non-"ruling class" citizens/peoples/persons across the world? What if a huge part of the scamdemic was simply motivated by sinecures & money-making?
[1] SOURCE: https://brownstone.org/articles/how-to-defeat-the-censorship-industrial-complex/
[2] SOURCE: https://brownstone.org/resistance/
END of PART ONE
Thanks for commenting. I'll address these comments here and part 2 in reply to those comments.
1) I agree that emergency exceptions ARE legal and that the axiom about the Constitution have no emergency provisions is manifestly false and PR only. What I have said is that there is no provision for a DISEASE-SPREAD emergency. At least in Illinois, the potential situations for emergency declaration do NOT include "something is spreading from person to person." We have a robust communicable disease code and the specifics of those codes were VIOLATED. My main concern with the term "lockdown" is that it's NOT a concept in federal/state communicable disease laws/codes, as far as I can tell. Laws around quarantine/modified quarantine and isolation/modified isolation - among other things - were broken.
2) I understand what you're saying about the approach we decided to take. It was in the. context of a conversation between the three of us about a related topic and was far more organic than "strategic" in the sense that we didn't huddle up and say, "Okay, what's the best plan for getting something about our shared views in DS/BI right now"? Both outlets have published or linked to articles by one or more of us, so we weren't trying to "score" with them per se. It was more about a potential neutral third party who might be willing to host a critique and rejoinder of one dichotomy the three of us agree is problematic. It's also something of a follow up to the Jay Bhattacharya "Next Pandemic" tweet and JE's request that his name being taken off the GBD, the Stanford "Next Pandemic" conference, etc.
3) Jeffrey declining the idea isn't unreasonable, given the direction BI has taken (which they are entitled to take) and the brand of resistance they prefer.. DS's response is more perplexing because they are more of a news site AND because their name and tagline convey a commitment to skepticism, questions, etc. That said, both organizations repeatedly highlight how "censored" dissenting viewpoints were in 2020+, so it seems odd for both to articulate such a strong commitment to points of a view about questions that are far from "settled."
I confess it feels a bit like trying to tell someone, "Do you know who Luke Skywalker's real father is???" and the person being like, "I've heard it might be Darth Vader, but Uncle Owen raised him, and there are credible rumors Luke's father might be Obi-Wan Kenobi, so I'm sticking with that for now and trying to stay focused on what the Empire might do next."
TY, and I enjoyed (lol'd) the Star Wars analogy. And "brand of resistance" is "chef's kiss." I'd comment more about what you've written (both replies), but will spare you my riveting insights and just say it's all worth reading at least 3 times.
I need to stay tuned/keep listening. I try pretty hard to understand "everything," but I don't presently "get" why BI/Tucker or DS/Jones would be invested in lab leak -- one way or the other. Maybe I can't relate because ultimately I'm primarily interested in whatever is true. Maybe I'm too simpleminded🤔.
Re State laws/codes, I just discovered this organization and its web place. Have you heard of The National Academy for State Health Policy? Here's the link to the covid topic at the site: https://nashp.org/policy/public-health/covid-19/. Also see: https://nashp.org/policy/public-health/public-health-modernization/. Might be an info resource….
PART TWO (OF TWO)
I can't write an exposition here (though I have much more I could say). I have closely watched/analyzed Mr. Tucker for several years. There's plenty of evidence that he is inconsistent if not clueless about a number of topics such as limited government/Constitutionally-limited governance, the climate change con, the role of and purported need for the institution/discipline of Public Health (PH)—especially to involve itself in common respiratory contagions (ILIs, CLIs), and even the nonsense usage of the very terms "public health" and "global health." He also has been one of the staunchest insisters that the policy-response to "the covid event" betrayed thoughtful/reasonable/honorable/legitimate PH that had been established prior to 2020—even though he literally knows better but just can't seem to take it to the next level and not revert to his default.
Brownstone (the "Brownstone brain trust" as I've taken to calling it) has become an establishment-adjacent clique. It may not be the regime/establishment that we tend to think of when we conceive of the forces that dominate our lives and are perfectly happy to "suffocate" and "dispose" of "us" faceless nameless mass-formation masses, but it's a socially-acceptable group of (overly-popular) "leaders." Look at the list of featured attendees/celebrities for the Resistance Gala (footnote #2 above).
Whom among these persons is going to resist "the next pandemic"? Can we look forward to, for example, Dr. Desmet diagnosing all of us little people with his invented psychosis while he refuses to diagnose the overlords' mass-formation psychopathy/psychopathology which is plain as day since early 2020? Will Chris Martenson be encouraging face-mask use because of the threat of fomites? Will Bret "Bert" Weinstein ride in on a white horse and mesmerize the audience with his superior knowledge and intellect about everything? Will ANY of the esteemed Panelists mention the "f" word: influenza—or whether so-called vaccines were ever warranted whatsoever for any of these seasonal and "pandemic-potential" threats that "plague" humankind?
I've written TOO much, and I am hoping Ms. Jessica won't be too ticked at me, so I have to wrap this up.
Conclusion (though admittedly I haven't fully fleshed out the above):
(A) Hockett et al should frame their proposed contribution "speaking truth to power" differently. For example, if NYC Spring 2020 is questionable/unbelievable, then all else follows. The import of this is earth shattering. I do have additional thoughts/insights/opinions about the angle/angles I would take, and I will expound upon request. I am a former editor of no particular noteworthiness, if that helps.
(B) Jeffrey Tucker and Brownstone are highbrow, barely-alt Establishment. Though it didn't start out that way, the clique of so-called dissenters has become a mutual admiration society (when it's not a Support Group) of message manipulators.
When Mr. Tucker implies that Brownstone does not have a tailored/controlled/established agenda (that apparently cannot countenance respectable insurgent dissension from the "pandemic denier" contingent), it is/he is disingenuous. It is a club and "you" aren't in it—UNLESS you agree that PH writ large is a societal good that just lost its way, vaccination/drugging of the healthy "herd" of human beings is a valid/laudable pursuit of Governments, anything goes as long as its efficacy is evidence-based and cost-benefit analyzed by persons with MPH after their names, and the featured Resistance Gala participants are actual resisters who are going to make the next pandemic kinder & gentler.
Thanks.
The fact that Brownstone as an organization has assembled a constellation of core contributors, fellows, et al that it thinks are best-suited/-positioned to articulate and advance its core values, agenda, etc. is expected and desirable in the world of such non-profits (at least in the U.S.). Collateral Global has done the same thing.
The NYC spring 2020 event has always been and will probably always be my entry point. It is, in my opinion, the best "No pandemic" evidence there is. I won't speak for JE and MN but we all have our regular lives and other individual concerns/areas of focus. There is no organization that binds us together. It's ad hoc and we don't have weekly strategy meetings. :)
FWIW, I replied to Mr. Tucker's email, he to mine, and me to his response. I haven't posted those emails because they don't make much difference materially and only showcase further that we are not on the same page.
That "is what it is "and I am not mad about it, even though I find it ironic that an organization so concerned with how dissenting voices were suppressed - and which has readily published so many different views - has now decided the Lab Origin hypothesis is off limits for now.
Maybe things will change after the election?
This narrow form of thinking seems to me to be similar to the ludicrous “science is settled” argument put forward by mainly the leftist hoax crowd. Shameful that others are now falling into that lie. I don’t see how they can latch on to any position regarding the “virus pandemic” era when there is so little truth, or facts yet available and seemingly many falsehoods propagated. From a non scientific standpoint, the last five years have shown us that if dissenting theories are forbidden for discussion and censored by the governing administration, scientific establishment, medical industry, and propaganda media, then there is likely a great deal of merit to those dissenting opinions, and the censors have a great deal to lose from the truth.
Agreed.
Will Jones is free to say things like "any such articles have to stay on the right side of the line and not involve what we would regard as a denial of the key role played by the virus," but I don't see how he or the DS staff can say they live up to their moniker or tagline....
This post that shows that the Dissident Establishment is yet corralling people into one side or the other of the dialectic. It feels to me the same as when RFK, Jr. was subsumed into the Trump campaign. Make America Healthy again is suddenly all about good food. All talk of Vaxxx bad seems to have vanished. I now have no real choice in the election; either will continue to support the notion of bad viruses out there, which you all have been undermining in a meaningful way, to the chagrin of those who would continue to control by fear. I'd be interested in having you also challenge the other "medical freedom" leaders, like Kirsch, Malone, Kory, to have a debate with you on this subject. Regardless of who might win such a debate, the willingness to pick up the gauntlet could be an interesting tell.
Thanks.
We already engaged Dr Kory as far as he was willing to go https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/dialogue-wpierre-kory
There is no reason to believe either Dr Malone or Steve Kirsch would engage, but potential opponents aren't the problem, as there are so many.
It's a venue/outlet issue. Our respective Substacks are not "neutral" ground.
The approach with Kory worked fairly well, but I am sure you can appreciate the reticence of many toward using their popular Substacks for debate.
Thanks to each of you for your steady scientific work. I agree with the above that the NYC investigation needs to proceed and the Jenga blocks will fall if it was theater. Until we see the body count, I don’t see why it is an unreasonable position to hold that we do not have the evidence that we met even the old definition of an epidemic, let alone a pandemic.
Qui bono is always the question and apparently asking reasonable scientific questions is threatening many. It’s not possible to induce fear again across the population if the curtain is pulled back and people can see the wizened little wizard pulling levers.
From an experiential standpoint in primary care there are things that don’t add up. I witnessed three patients in a practice of a couple thousand who were ill in 2020 with what was labelled COVID—note: both hospitalized first, the diagnosis not made in the office. The set of symptoms given initially by the CDC was not distinguishable from any other undistinguished ILI. Then it seemed there was added to these many, many more symptoms. ie. Loss of taste and smell, tinnitus, etc. But why was my metropolitan area not flooded with ill people, especially since one of the first ‘cases’ reported and worked up by the CDC was in my city related to travel to China? How could this be a dangerous, very contagious respiratory virus if it could not travel 20 miles across six million people and affect people in my part of the city?
The ‘cases, cases, cases’ are going ‘up,up, up’ simply was not true.
In 2021 after the vax rollout things changed. I asked a physical therapist if I was the only one who felt the population health was declining. For example, it seemed that so many patients’ BPs were elevated in the office, who previously had no history of HTN.
There were so few practices which were open and treating patients, that those of us who were doing so, ended up connecting with patients from great distances; skewing any sense of how many people in our original patient base were ill.
At the very end of 2021, turning the corner into 2022; the presentation of symptoms changed completely. People were not as ill ( it was now a common cold; shifted in 2 weeks time) and whatever-it-was-that-we-referred-to-as-COVID-19 was now a completely different entity in terms of its impact than it had been across 2021. There was a lot of discussion about variants at that time. We don’t test for variants. The PCR was already rubbish, so I ignored the variant discussion.
Did I witness people become gravely ill in 2021?
Was the presentation of symptoms different than ILI of previous years? Yes.
Were we able help people regain their health? Yes. No one who sought help early died.
However—
Why, if this was a respiratory virus infecting ppl did it respect political boundaries, such as the Pennsylvania : NY border?
I would like to have that question thoroughly and scientifically explored.
The PsyOp is still "ON": The Daily Sceptic returned their answer about Covid-19 to your question about SARS-CoV-2.