Hold Our Horses...
While many of the "conspiracy theories" of the last three years have been proven true, let's stay reasonable...
For those who have been skeptical of everything from the COVID source, lockdowns, masks, “vaccines” and the myriad of other untold claims by the “experts” over the past 3 years (and beyond), there is a flood of vindication coming out that we were right all along. Even many who bought (and still buy) the mainstream narrative are growing increasingly skeptical of the barrage of lies issuing forth in the form of constant propaganda and the current information war.
On the one hand, this is encouraging to those of us who have objected to all or part of this.
On the other hand, I’m seeing more and more excesses by those on the skeptical side of things (“medical freedom movment”) and am concerned that rather than bringing necessary reform, we’ll miss the opportunity by overshooting the target and trying to claim too much, thereby losing even persuadable people in the process.
An example of this may be seen in The Liberty Daily’s front page main story this morning:
(I have grown to love The Liberty Daily, as a conservative alternative to the Drudge Report which has gotten to overt in pushing Matt Drudge’s hobby horses IMHO. But TLD can be excessively open to notions of intentionality on the “other side” and I think this headline, which links to an opinion piece at Natural News exemplifies this.)
Looking at the article, I found myself wanting to qualify almost every point the author made, and thought it might be a useful example in “how not to be” a faithful warrior against Big Pharma, Big Government, etc.
The article by “S.D. Wells” begins somewhat reasonably enough, with the summary:
SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory and released to start a pandemic, and this is no conspiracy theory (anymore), and actually never was one.
This is of course based on all the evidence that there seems to have been foresight and even intentionality in how this all developed, whereas now many are suggesting the data suggests that a COVID lab leak happened as early as September 2019. The question that still has not been answered conclusively, however, is whether this was an intentional “bioweapon” or an accident that became a “crisis, never to let go to waste.”
Wells believes all the evidence has proven the former “bioweapon” thesis:
From lab to lungs, the scamdemic was planned so that big governments and big pharma could take control of the populace, kill off billions of them, control the rest, and convince everyone that the clot shot vaccines were the saving grace of it all, even though they are the weapons of mass destruction.
He purports to offer a conclusive “forest for the trees” description of how all this came about with malice aforethought starting in 2004. But does his “evidence” bear this out? I don’t think so, but you decide.
Here’s what I mean. Wells begins by describing the failure of early attempts at making a SARS vaccine. He is right that there was a long period of trying to create a SARS vaccine and it was all a big failure, pretty much all the vaccines led to the death of the animal subjects in trials. Wells mentions ferrets who contracted hepatitis, but there were other adverse events (including vaccine-enhanced disease), hepatitis being only one of a number of bad outcomes. I’m not sure why Wells focuses on this one adverse event among many (he doesn’t do much with it afterward).
Next Wells cites the book Virus Mania published in 2007. I haven’t read it myself, and find the apparent thesis that Big Pharma knows it can profit off disease to be pretty obvious. The way Wells uses it as “evidence,” however, I find problematic as he seems to argue the veracity of the book’s thesis is proven by its apparently rigorous research:
The book is very thorough and fact based, with over 800 footnotes and scientific, evidence-based research to back up all the statements.
This is not convincing. The number of footnotes does not make something true or not. I’m not sure 800 is that many for a well-researched book. And isn’t “scientific, evidence-based research” exactly the kind we’ve been fed by the “experts” for the last 3 years?
So at this point, Wells has me reading with a grain of salt…which begins to grow with his next bit of “evidence”:
September, 2010: Bill Gates announces he can reduce the world’s population by several billion people using new vaccines and abortions.
I get it, Bill Gates holds anti-human, depopulationist views, and has the money to make things happen. I also get that people see him as a psychopath, though I think his actions and attitudes can as easily be explained as due to unfettered narcissism…which I guess could be it’s own psychopathy, but I digress.
Unfortunately for Wells’ thesis, this video of Gates is his main bit of evidence that this was all a depopulation plan, as he comes back to it toward the end of the article, stating:
Bill Gates said the quiet part out loud, at a TED conference, explaining how the world population could be reduced by several billion people if we … “do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services…” and by healthcare and reproductive services, he meant abortions, and by vaccines he meant instead of just causing extreme allergies, asthma, and autism, that NEW vaccines literally exterminate people, as the Covid clot shots do now by sending millions of spike proteins into vital organs, while clogging up the vascular system, causing turbo cancer and heart attacks. What else could he have meant, besides maybe more deadly prescription drugs? Let that sink in for a moment.
This bit of evidence falls flat for me, because I think there is something else that Gates could have meant by this statement, and this would make our whole experience these past years not the product of some malign attempt to depopulate the earth, but instead a lesson in the dangerous results of good intentions.
What Gates said in the TED talk mentioned by Wells is that 1) we should have a goal for reducing population, 2) vaccines and abortion are the ways to do this. I disagree 100% with #1 which makes it easy to reject #2 out of hand. And while abortion is a horrific form of genocide, to many who think differently than I do they are a humane way to keep from producing human suffering. To them it keeps from creating “unwanted” people “accidentally” and enables only the “right” people to plan for children so that we have a smaller population that is better nurtured and can live better, happier lives.
Of course those who oppose abortion on ethical grounds can’t see this “positive” view of abortion, so we’re going to see abortion associated with vaccines and assume they are both simply forms of evil genocide. But it’s not clear to me that vaccines in the way Gates is advocating for them are intended to “reduce” population by killing people outright.
Despite the fact that I don’t agree with Gates at all, I believe his point was that vaccines preserve life and enable people to keep from getting horrifying, life-altering illnesses that end up keeping them poor and procreating excessively (based on the readily demonstrable fact that poor people have the most kids). If they can live better they will “flourish” and (like most western societies) begin to have fewer children. This is a far cry from “vaccines should be used to kill off populations.”
Then after Wells cites his next bit of proof—the warning in 2015 that bats would be the source of a pandemic—he lists next:
January, 2018: Fauci steers massive funding to Wuhan lab’s “gain of function” coronavirus research so a bat disease can spread to humans (and it works).
Yes, Fauci did “steer” funding to the Wuhan lab through EcoHealth Alliance, but I’m not sure in government terms it was “massive.” And again, the claimed reason for doing gain of function research has always been to “get ahead” of the virus’s mutation so we can save humans. Despite this being an attempt to build a modern Tower of Babel, it seems one must acknowledge the altruistic (rather than psychopathic) motives that may be driving it.
The rest of Wells’ evidence is just citing all of the horrors done to develop, push, and promote these awful “vaccines” since 2020. But does it all lead to Wells’ conclusion that this was all a depopulation plan by Bill Gates and others? I’m not convinced. What about you?