Coronavirus Pandemic

Some ideas don’t deserve respect because some ideas are patently wrong, including that the pandemic is a hoax
I'm willing to consider some nuance here, and perhaps you are too.

Here's my take: Questioning the official narrative and seeking opinions of anti-mainstream scientific and medical experts is fine and quite frankly a good thing to my view. Journalism used to really be motivated and excited to do this work. People in authority must constantly be challenged; its a great check on power and a pillar to free societies.

That said, what goes on in this thread and in too many places on the internet are folks going beyond questioning and now declaring the pandemic to be a hoax. The evidence for this is flimsy at best (the proponents of this "plandemic" narrative know this; especially those in this thread). But like any good conspiracy, there is always a God of the Gaps ability to squeeze the questionable evidence into to maintain cognitive dissonance.

It may be a hoax; sure. It also may be an actual pandemic. Be agnostic and a diligent questioner of the authorities, but stop with the declarations. You simply can't be sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I'm willing to consider some nuance here, and perhaps you are too.

Here's my take: Questioning the official narrative and seeking opinions of anti-mainstream scientific and medical experts is fine and quite frankly a good thing to my view. Journalism used to really be motivated and excited to do this work. People in authority must constantly be challenged; its a great check on power and a pillar to free societies.

That said, what goes on in this thread and in too many places on the internet are folks going beyond questioning and now declaring the pandemic to be a hoax. The evidence for this is flimsy at best (the proponents of this "plandemic" narrative know this; especially those in this thread). But like any good conspiracy, there is always a God of the Gaps ability to squeeze the questionable evidence into to maintain cognitive dissonance.

It may be a hoax; sure. It also may be an actual pandemic. Be agnostic and a diligent questioner of the authorities, but stop with the declarations. You simply can't be sure.
I feel rather like you on this, but I guess it rather depends on what you mean by a hoax. I am fairly sure a CV-19 virus exists (not 100% sure), I am much less convinced that it needs to be countered in such a drastic way and at such a huge human cost.

I'd really recommend that video to everyone. Surely Philemon, it is worth taking each of his many arguments on their own - disregarding his politics.

David
 
With regards to "the virus as a hoax" some "people" can be very manipulative. They avoid the fact that "the virus" (which may have been intentionally released or accidentally released yet does have a reality onto itself) is being used manipulatively. All those manipulations are the hoax not "the virus" itself.

And because of these obvious abuses perpetrated by all sorts of people and groups with all sorts of agendas, most "regular" people are unable to know what may be more close to the truth and what may not be. You certainly cannot believe the media, the WHO, the CDC, the Imperial College London, IHME, Bill Gates and any of his foundations, etc. ad nauseam.

These abuses are weighted down by spin or exaggeration or info/disinfo globules of information which are used by, for the most part, non-legally empowered "authority figures" who simple cite the information as an excuse to act/impose their unauthorized power upon the general population. This is the hoax that folks like myself, who are honest, pay attention, and call balls "balls" and strikes "strikes" when the powers that be are throwing their "pitches."

Obfuscators who jump to the statement "you can't be sure" are avoiding the truth of what so many are referring to as "the hoax" by redefining "hoax" to include the virus itself (which may be... but no one here that I read is making that claim).

I don't know how anyone who operates this way, which is so intellectually irresponsible and/or dishonest, can manage their conscience and continue this course unless... that conscience is compromised or doesn't exist.
 
With regards to "the virus as a hoax" some "people" can be very manipulative. They avoid the fact that "the virus" (which may have been intentionally released or accidentally released yet does have a reality onto itself) is being used manipulatively. All those manipulations are the hoax not "the virus" itself.

And because of these obvious abuses perpetrated by all sorts of people and groups with all sorts of agendas, most "regular" people are unable to know what may be more close to the truth and what may not be. You certainly cannot believe the media, the WHO, the CDC, the Imperial College London, IHME, Bill Gates and any of his foundations, etc. ad nauseam.

These abuses are weighted down by spin or exaggeration or info/disinfo globules of information which are used by, for the most part, non-legally empowered "authority figures" who simple cite the information as an excuse to act/impose their unauthorized power upon the general population. This is the hoax that folks like myself, who are honest, pay attention, and call balls "balls" and strikes "strikes" when the powers that be are throwing their "pitches."

Obfuscators who jump to the statement "you can't be sure" are avoiding the truth of what so many are referring to as "the hoax" by redefining "hoax" to include the virus itself (which may be... but no one here that I read is making that claim).

I don't know how anyone who operates this way, which is so intellectually irresponsible and/or dishonest, can manage their conscience and continue this course unless... that conscience is compromised or doesn't exist.
I do agree with that, except that I suppose I am not 100% sure the virus rfeally does exist! It would seem that the coronaviruses are difficult to actualy purify, so you end up with a stew of virus plus assorted debris from human cells. Some strand(s) of RNA are then taken from that stew and make up the template for all those PCR tests.

The dangers of that could be immense. RNA is produced when a gene is switched on, and some genes are only turned on under stressful conditions such as infection - so you might get some human RNA of that sort that becomes the template!

Interestingly, Henry Bauer claims something similar for the AIDS virus, which he thinks may not exist, and doesn't cause AIDS. He is getting old, and I thought he had stopped updating his website. However, something has popped up:

https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/

Also dentists are seeing a rise in oral hygiene problems resulting from mask wearing:

https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-of-wearing-masks/

David
 
Last edited:
Here in NZ our Prime Minister had the opinion that that the actions taken (hard and early) to defeat the virus would also be exactly the same actions that would benefit the economy.

I was sceptical... but sitting here in a country with no community transmission and all schools and businesses open as normal, I suspect she was right. I also suspect she'll win a landslide in our general election next month.

https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8489-nz-national -voting-intention-july-2020-202008070802

... This is where a strong pandemic response can get you.

Now this:
A top official at the Federal Reserve criticized the decision by many states to reopen businesses this spring before getting the virus fully under control, and said those choices have hindered an economic recovery in the U.S.

https://apnews.com/a16a8c7ebae660979d22c3877c65c09b

I’ll say it again: I don’t know anyone who actually locked down aside from myself and my wife. Everyone else I know either slowed some things down a little or outright kept going full speed ahead, resentful that anyone was suggesting they should do otherwise.

Here’s more relevant quotes from the article:
“Limited or inconsistent efforts by states to control the virus based on public health guidance are not only placing citizens at unnecessary risk of severe illness and possible death – but are also likely to prolong the economic downturn,” Rosengren said in prepared remarks.
“Despite the sizable interventions by monetary and fiscal policymakers ... the recovery may be losing steam, as activities in many states are once again restricted (officially or voluntarily) to slow the virus’s spread,” Rosengren said.
In Europe, nations “shut down more forcefully, maintained restrictions longer, and did not reopen until the virus had reached low levels,” Rosengren said. “In contrast, in the United States, infection rates remain elevated, as states lifted protective measures too soon,” Rosengren said.

As a result, real-time data shows that in Europe, visits to retail stores and recreation outlets, such as movie theaters and amusement parks, have recovered more robustly than in the United States and are closer to pre-pandemic levels, Rosengren said.
 
This article explains the disinformation campaign against hydroxychloroqine

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sk-patients-and-saying-otherwise-is-dangerous

The author argues that early treatment of high risk patients with "hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and antibiotics such as azithromycin or doxycycline" is effective and safe. He says in understanding the disease and treatment you have to consider the difference between the early flu-like phase and and later pneumonia phase, as well as the difference between high risk and low risk patients. He says the people arguing against hydroxychloroquine are incorrectly applying studies of low-risk patients and late-phase disease to high-risk patients and early-phase treatment. He also suggests the reason for the attacks against hydroychloroquine originate with the drug companies who stand to make more money from other treatments.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sk-patients-and-saying-otherwise-is-dangerous
As of Wednesday, some 165,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-19. I have made the case in the American Journal of Epidemiology and in Newsweek that people who have a medical need to be treated can be treated early and successfully with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and antibiotics such as azithromycin or doxycycline. I have also argued that these drugs are safe and have made that case privately to the Food and Drug Administration.​
The pushback has been furious. Dr. Anthony Fauci has implied that I am incompetent, notwithstanding my hundreds of highly regarded, methodologically relevant publications in peer-reviewed scientific literature. A group of my Yale colleagues has publicly intimated that I am a zealot who is perpetrating a dangerous hoax and conspiracy theory. I have been attacked in news articles by journalists who, ignorant of the full picture, have spun hit pieces from cherry-picked sources.​
These personal attacks are a dangerous distraction from the real issue of hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness, which is solidly grounded in both substantial evidence and appropriate medical decision-making logic. Much of the evidence is presented in my articles.​
To date, there are no studies whatsoever, published or in pre-print, that provide scientific evidence against the treatment approach for high-risk outpatients that I have described. None. Assertions to the contrary, whether by Fauci, the FDA, or anyone else, are without foundation. They constitute misleading and toxic disinformation.​
What do you need to know to evaluate these smears against hydroxychloroquine? The first thing to understand is that COVID-19 has two main stages. At the first stage, it is a flu-like illness. That illness will not kill you. If you are a high-risk patient and begin treatment immediately, you will almost certainly be done with it in a few days. When not treated, high-risk patients may progress. The virus then causes severe pneumonia and attacks many organs, including the heart. In this second stage, hydroxychloroquine is not effective.​
So, if you are told that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, ask this question: In which patients? Does it not work in those who have just started to have symptoms, or those sick enough to require hospitalization?​
The second thing to know is that most low-risk patients survive without treatment. Low risk means you are under age 60 and have no chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, have no past treatment for cancer, are not immunocompromised, etc. High risk means you are over 60 or you have one or more of those chronic conditions. High-risk patients need immediate treatment when they first show symptoms. One should not wait for the COVID-19 test result, which can take days and can be wrong. Again, when Fauci and others say that randomized controlled trials show no benefit for hydroxychloroquine, you must ask: In which group of patients?​
Every randomized controlled trial to date that has looked at early outpatient treatment has involved low-risk patients, patients who are not generally treated. In these studies, so few untreated control patients have required hospitalization that significant differences were not found. There has been only one exception: In a study done in Spain with low-risk patients, a small number of high-risk nursing home patients were included. For those patients, the medications cut the risk of a bad outcome in half.​
I reiterate: If doctors, including any of my Yale colleagues, tell you that scientific data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work in outpatients, they are revealing that they can’t tell the difference between low-risk patients who are not generally treated and high-risk patients who need to be treated as quickly as possible. Doctors who do not understand this difference should not be treating COVID-19 patients.​
What about medication safety? On July 1, the FDA posted a “black-letter warning” cautioning against using hydroxychloroquine “outside of the hospital setting,” meaning in outpatients. But on its website just below this warning, the FDA stated that the warning was based on data from hospitalized patients. To generalize and compare severely ill patients with COVID-induced pneumonia and possibly heart problems to outpatients is entirely improper.
In fact, the FDA has no information about adverse events in early outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine. The only available systematic information about adverse events among outpatients is discussed in my article in the American Journal of Epidemiology, where I show that hydroxychloroquine has been extremely safe in more than a million users.
It is a serious and unconscionable mistake that the FDA has used inpatient data to block emergency use petitions for outpatient use. Further, already back in March, the FDA approved the emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients, for whom it is demonstrably less effective than for outpatients. If hydroxychloroquine satisfied the FDA criteria for emergency inpatient use in March, it should more than satisfy those criteria now for outpatient use, where the evidence is much stronger.​
I can only speculate about the cause of the FDA’s recalcitrance. Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive, generic medication. Unlike certain profit-generating, patented medications, which have been promiscuously touted on the slimmest of evidence, hydroxychloroquine has no natural financial constituency. No one will get rich from it.
Further, it seems quite possible that the FDA, a third of whose funding comes from drug companies, is under intense pressure from those companies to be extremely conservative in its handling of hydroxychloroquine. If hydroxychloroquine is used widely and comes to be recognized as highly effective, the markets for expensive and patented COVID-19 medications, including intravenous drugs that can only be used in the hospital, will shrink substantially.
Whatever the reason for the FDA’s stonewalling on hydroxychloroquine, this much is certain: Americans are dying unnecessarily, the economy is in disarray, and the threads that bind our society together have frayed. I am speaking out, but where is everyone else? Where are our elected officials, including those who are themselves physicians? Some, including Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, have been discussing evidence of the drug's effectiveness, but where are the rest?​
This issue should not be a partisan one. If our elected officials are not willing to pry open the FDA, we must elect new officials. Why are we silent? The time to speak is now.​
 
This article explains the disinformation campaign against hydroxychloroqine

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sk-patients-and-saying-otherwise-is-dangerous

The author argues that early treatment of high risk patients with "hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and antibiotics such as azithromycin or doxycycline" is effective and safe. He says in understanding the disease and treatment you have to consider the difference between the early flu-like phase and and later pneumonia phase, as well as the difference between high risk and low risk patients. He says the people arguing against hydroxychloroquine are incorrectly applying studies of low-risk patients and late-phase disease to high-risk patients and early-phase treatment. He also suggests the reason for the attacks against hydroychloroquine originate with the drug companies who stand to make more money from other treatments.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sk-patients-and-saying-otherwise-is-dangerous
As of Wednesday, some 165,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-19. I have made the case in the American Journal of Epidemiology and in Newsweek that people who have a medical need to be treated can be treated early and successfully with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and antibiotics such as azithromycin or doxycycline. I have also argued that these drugs are safe and have made that case privately to the Food and Drug Administration.​
The pushback has been furious. Dr. Anthony Fauci has implied that I am incompetent, notwithstanding my hundreds of highly regarded, methodologically relevant publications in peer-reviewed scientific literature. A group of my Yale colleagues has publicly intimated that I am a zealot who is perpetrating a dangerous hoax and conspiracy theory. I have been attacked in news articles by journalists who, ignorant of the full picture, have spun hit pieces from cherry-picked sources.​
These personal attacks are a dangerous distraction from the real issue of hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness, which is solidly grounded in both substantial evidence and appropriate medical decision-making logic. Much of the evidence is presented in my articles.​
To date, there are no studies whatsoever, published or in pre-print, that provide scientific evidence against the treatment approach for high-risk outpatients that I have described. None. Assertions to the contrary, whether by Fauci, the FDA, or anyone else, are without foundation. They constitute misleading and toxic disinformation.​
What do you need to know to evaluate these smears against hydroxychloroquine? The first thing to understand is that COVID-19 has two main stages. At the first stage, it is a flu-like illness. That illness will not kill you. If you are a high-risk patient and begin treatment immediately, you will almost certainly be done with it in a few days. When not treated, high-risk patients may progress. The virus then causes severe pneumonia and attacks many organs, including the heart. In this second stage, hydroxychloroquine is not effective.​
So, if you are told that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, ask this question: In which patients? Does it not work in those who have just started to have symptoms, or those sick enough to require hospitalization?​
The second thing to know is that most low-risk patients survive without treatment. Low risk means you are under age 60 and have no chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, have no past treatment for cancer, are not immunocompromised, etc. High risk means you are over 60 or you have one or more of those chronic conditions. High-risk patients need immediate treatment when they first show symptoms. One should not wait for the COVID-19 test result, which can take days and can be wrong. Again, when Fauci and others say that randomized controlled trials show no benefit for hydroxychloroquine, you must ask: In which group of patients?​
Every randomized controlled trial to date that has looked at early outpatient treatment has involved low-risk patients, patients who are not generally treated. In these studies, so few untreated control patients have required hospitalization that significant differences were not found. There has been only one exception: In a study done in Spain with low-risk patients, a small number of high-risk nursing home patients were included. For those patients, the medications cut the risk of a bad outcome in half.​
I reiterate: If doctors, including any of my Yale colleagues, tell you that scientific data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work in outpatients, they are revealing that they can’t tell the difference between low-risk patients who are not generally treated and high-risk patients who need to be treated as quickly as possible. Doctors who do not understand this difference should not be treating COVID-19 patients.​
What about medication safety? On July 1, the FDA posted a “black-letter warning” cautioning against using hydroxychloroquine “outside of the hospital setting,” meaning in outpatients. But on its website just below this warning, the FDA stated that the warning was based on data from hospitalized patients. To generalize and compare severely ill patients with COVID-induced pneumonia and possibly heart problems to outpatients is entirely improper.
In fact, the FDA has no information about adverse events in early outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine. The only available systematic information about adverse events among outpatients is discussed in my article in the American Journal of Epidemiology, where I show that hydroxychloroquine has been extremely safe in more than a million users.
It is a serious and unconscionable mistake that the FDA has used inpatient data to block emergency use petitions for outpatient use. Further, already back in March, the FDA approved the emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients, for whom it is demonstrably less effective than for outpatients. If hydroxychloroquine satisfied the FDA criteria for emergency inpatient use in March, it should more than satisfy those criteria now for outpatient use, where the evidence is much stronger.​
I can only speculate about the cause of the FDA’s recalcitrance. Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive, generic medication. Unlike certain profit-generating, patented medications, which have been promiscuously touted on the slimmest of evidence, hydroxychloroquine has no natural financial constituency. No one will get rich from it.
Further, it seems quite possible that the FDA, a third of whose funding comes from drug companies, is under intense pressure from those companies to be extremely conservative in its handling of hydroxychloroquine. If hydroxychloroquine is used widely and comes to be recognized as highly effective, the markets for expensive and patented COVID-19 medications, including intravenous drugs that can only be used in the hospital, will shrink substantially.
Whatever the reason for the FDA’s stonewalling on hydroxychloroquine, this much is certain: Americans are dying unnecessarily, the economy is in disarray, and the threads that bind our society together have frayed. I am speaking out, but where is everyone else? Where are our elected officials, including those who are themselves physicians? Some, including Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, have been discussing evidence of the drug's effectiveness, but where are the rest?​
This issue should not be a partisan one. If our elected officials are not willing to pry open the FDA, we must elect new officials. Why are we silent? The time to speak is now.​
****
Okay people this is BS! ^^^ Hydroxychloroquine & zinc do work. Even if they didn't you have the right to try this. One thing Trump did lately that can help us is he has opened up teledoctor for everyone. I mean I can "facetalk" to my doctor. NOW, we can "facetalk" to ANY doctor. Which brings us to those doctors who can prescribe this drug if we need it.

Look for years I studied several diseases I took an interest in. One was coronavirus in felines. It is VERY widespread esp. in shelters & catteries. It's in other animals as well, but I studied the feline one. Here is the deal why this COVID is like coronavirus in cats.

It is already in the population, yes some cats will PCR clear for it, but it's like weeds (as my vet said) it is everywhere. Many breeders just call it "herpes". But the term "herpes" encompasses a lot of diseases, some are curable others are not.

Now, coronavirus in felines (just like in people) doesn't cause much of a problem. It's a U.R. virus. BUT, if you stress a cat (by overcrowding for example), or it has a weak immune system or other problem coronavirus will turn into FIP which is deadly. There are 2 types (wet & dry) most often you will see the wet form in felines.

In people, it's the same thing. It pretty quickly kills a cat & it isn't an easy death, it's like they drownd. Okay, now this thing people get, may not be EXACTLY the same thing, but it acts the same. The bottom line is this & you might as well know this. There is no cure. Years & years have been spent looking for a cure, millions of dollars spent. It's pretty common actually. Well, not UN-common. But, it has been here all along. I did speak with two of the biggest researchers on this & it hasn't improved. Meaning, we still do not have a vaccine or cure.

Not to be all Debbie Downer here, I mean since it's in humans maybe now somebody will find a cure...
 
I do agree with that, except that I suppose I am not 100% sure the virus rfeally does exist! It would seem that the coronaviruses are difficult to actualy purify, so you end up with a stew of virus plus assorted debris from human cells. Some strand(s) of RNA are then taken from that stew and make up the template for all those PCR tests.

The dangers of that could be immense. RNA is produced when a gene is switched on, and some genes are only turned on under stressful conditions such as infection - so you might get some human RNA of that sort that becomes the template!

Interestingly, Henry Bauer claims something similar for the AIDS virus, which he thinks may not exist, and doesn't cause AIDS. He is getting old, and I thought he had stopped updating his website. However, something has popped up:

https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/

Also dentists are seeing a rise in oral hygiene problems resulting from mask wearing:

https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-of-wearing-masks/

David

I actually agree with you 100% about not being so sure there really is a virus too, based on much of the same information you have cited and other information sources I have come across. If that ends up being the case, then indeed, the whole "COVID" virus thing (and perhaps AIDS as well) is a hoax. If so, we sure do have some extremely sick individuals in high places. And that wouldn't surprise me.
 
Okay, the reason I got on here is someone sent me a video & I need as many of you that can to watch it & give us all feedback. Because this explains a LOT about what is going on here about this COVID.

I'll be damned if the Catholic Church ONCE AGAIN doesn't have it's nose in the tent! I had to watch this twice, I might watch it again, I have to research some of it, but it was important so I wanted to share w/you guys before it gets deleted:
 
So every one of the ~750k worldwide deaths attributed to COVID weren't caused by COVID? If so, what was the cause?
***
NO Silence, some things are "COVID" sure. But the entire operation is being used for another agenda! Do you see now? It's clear to me. Because the response to this isn't normal. We never locked down people for any "killer" flu. EVER. Esp. not these numbers. Combine that with hospitals coding for COVID.

I told you, listen again, I did forensic accounting on a very well known eating disorder clinic. Hollyweird people went there, it was very expensive & (not sure how to put this but upscale). A resort kind of deal. What they did was you would FIRST get the clients insurance information then run it. When you found out what the limit was for this (psy) they then would tailor the "cure" to the coverage. It is well known with doctors.

Another example is like with infertility clinics the same racket, IF you have great insurance, the regular doctor wants to keep that patient there as long as possible, doing all kinds of test. Drugs, wait, testing, wait, operations, wait, more drugs.. more test. It's well known in infertility clinics. BUT the deal is, early on a doctor can know if the woman is the problem or the man (simple test). So, let's say it's the woman has blocked tubes, she already should be at the IVF clinic because NOTHING that doctor will EVER do will fix that. Her only chance is IVF.

However, these doctors will also pass that patient around. Say to an OBGYN or surgeon who wants to "take a peek" to see if they can help. WHICH is a total waste of time because that will NEVER help. EVER. A fallopian tube is the size of a human hair (smaller even). You can't go in with a knife, it won't ever work. But most people don't know how the human body is, or they believe doctors... I'm sorry I've just seen it WAY too much. It must be in a lot more specialties. A lot of times the woman will end up with a total hysterectomy at a very young age. I could tell you a lot of stories about this & the people are devastated. They will never have kids now. Does it happen??? ALL THE TIME!!

Why? Money. These doctors don't do IVF, so they do what they know & were trained for. That is the truth.

Now, why COVID? Follow the money, it's a fact (and they tried to cover this up on the web as well).. but if you code for COVID you get an extra 17K (not sure on the exact number right this second but I'm close). IF you incubate it gives the doctor 37K more. Why would a hospital NOT code for COVID? It's a free 50K per patient. Come on Silence... do you see now?

I've done PCR testing, I know how to "fix" the outcome if I wanted. It is so simple. It's nothing more than a plastic bag, Qtip and a form. I can put whatever on that Qtip & get whatever result I want. You say it doesn't happen? You better think again.

Look, it's too easy & way too... I don't know like EASY for a doctor to fall to do this even if he is a nice guy. Look I can get you 150K with just 3 people. See? Sure not a lot of doctors would do it, but for sure hospitals would & testing centers. Lot of money to be made here. I mean you could justify it with older people who are on the way out anyway, it's a free 50K.

Look, you know the test that came back positive from the Paw-paw fruit, goat & dog or whatever animal it was. They lied. People have tested positive then an hour later neg...

ALL THAT isn't my problem, what is my problem is this is NOT being handled right. Why? Why are we doing all this shutting down? This is serious now. People are losing their businesses, kids are getting screwed. This isn't good, we have to tell.
 
I actually agree with you 100% about not being so sure there really is a virus too, based on much of the same information you have cited and other information sources I have come across. If that ends up being the case, then indeed, the whole "COVID" virus thing (and perhaps AIDS as well) is a hoax. If so, we sure do have some extremely sick individuals in high places. And that wouldn't surprise me.
It needn't be exactly a hoax (again not to say it isn't). The problem is that if a virus won't crystallise, it can be difficult to get them pure, but without purity you can't be absolutely certain what is virus and what comes from another source. It might be better to chalk this up to scientific hubris - thinking that shortcuts can be taken when they can lead us astray.

David
 
It needn't be exactly a hoax (again not to say it isn't). The problem is that if a virus won't crystallise, it can be difficult to get them pure, but without purity you can't be absolutely certain what is virus and what comes from another source. It might be better to chalk this up to scientific hubris - thinking that shortcuts can be taken when they can lead us astray.

David
Again, a God of the Gaps argument. To be clear David, this isn't to say you are wrong. You may be right which is the hallmark of this posture (one that can not be categorically denied but one for which there is little, often no, evidence.)

Still comes back to what you'd ask public policy officials to do with this type of input. Should they discount the seriousness of the pandemic based on your line of thinking here?
 
I'm willing to consider some nuance here, and perhaps you are too.

Here's my take: Questioning the official narrative and seeking opinions of anti-mainstream scientific and medical experts is fine and quite frankly a good thing to my view. Journalism used to really be motivated and excited to do this work. People in authority must constantly be challenged; its a great check on power and a pillar to free societies.

That said, what goes on in this thread and in too many places on the internet are folks going beyond questioning and now declaring the pandemic to be a hoax. The evidence for this is flimsy at best (the proponents of this "plandemic" narrative know this; especially those in this thread). But like any good conspiracy, there is always a God of the Gaps ability to squeeze the questionable evidence into to maintain cognitive dissonance.

It may be a hoax; sure. It also may be an actual pandemic. Be agnostic and a diligent questioner of the authorities, but stop with the declarations. You simply can't be sure.

I generally am willing to consider nuance, but my willingness to acknowledge ambiguity about this virus is nearly shot. We've got 5+ months of experience with the pandemic under our belts here in the US, now. If a successful lockdown had occurred, then we wouldn't be in the position where it would need to be so frightful to send teachers and students into schools. There could be college football, without so much risk. There could be haircuts, without so much risk. There could be teeth cleanings, without so much risk. There could be a lot less risk. The bumper sticker sloganeering of "Life is risk!" does not address the moral failure behind the significantly increased risk that we have all been collectively exposed to. Yes, life comes with inherent risk. But adding to that inherent risk is immoral.

The last several months have been alarming to me, not so much because of the virus, but because of the way in which every spiritual venue I've engaged with over the last 15 years or so has demonstrated, on the whole, a concerted resistance to the reality (in part or in toto) of this pandemic. Where I once thought the bulk of the people engaging in these forums were cut from a different cloth, it turns out I could have just stayed in my old, rural hometown and talked with the folks there sitting in front of Fox and Friends. Could've gone to the Waffle House and found some people to talk astral projection with. Maybe hit up the VFW, and talked reincarnation memories in children.

From the start, there was a way of framing the whole event as a means of manipulating people out of their individual freedoms which, of course, roused significant numbers to "resist" by simply avoiding being responsible. This resistance has done nothing to increase anyone's freedom, but it has increased everyone's risk. Now, having engaged in bringing harm to others through parroting wrongheaded groupthink, not wearing masks, avoiding social distancing, and in being on the wrong side of the issue altogether, we have cognitive dissonance stopping people from acknowledging they made an error and doubling down, tripling down, quadrupuling down on their wrongheadedness.

In any case, how is it that the entire alt-spirituality community is so uniformly right wing? When Gordon White had Alex on, Alex congratulated him for his thinking on the pandemic. From what I recall, Gordon had gone off the rails early on because he was upset that his Air B&B or whatever was going to take a financial hit with the reduction in travel and he was angry that people were blaming faults in capitalism for the weaknesses in infrastructure that hte pandemic was illuminating. My thought was, hey, this thing is a stress test - and we're seeing how profoundly weak and incapable our system is to deal with even a modest stressor. Looks like we need to alter the system! (This is precisely what all the servants of the Flag and Cross egregore are so touchy about just now - willing to entertain any whack-job idea that villainizes a proponent of changing the underlying infrastructure so as to avoid considering the need for change). My fellow humans... life demands change in the face of changing conditions! Everything that fails to roll with the punches ends up dead! I want to use my freedom to change... to meet the demands of the prevailing conditions. Others wish to use theirs to stand still while the tidal wave roars onward and, by doing so, block others from escaping. Be aware: You are taking on negative karma by this stance whether you want to admit it or not.

And... what is the deal with all the rightwingers amongst the alt-spirituality community? I recall a comment a couple months ago by a commenter at Michael Prescott's blog where he said something to the effect of, "Wow, your (wrong) views about the pandemic make me wonder if you're wrong about everything else, too." Of course, being wrong about one thing doesn't mean you're wrong about everything else... but I do think it's necessary to take a step back and reevaluate the soundness of our own, and other's, reasoning when we find we have made a grave error. And, DAMN, is there a lot of poor reasoning and willingness to entertain utterly foolish and stupid ideas when time is of the essence and sound action needs to be taken. You disagree with BLM? Fine. That doesn't mean the pandemic is fake. You disagree with defunding the police? Fine. That doesn't mean that Bill Gates wants to put nanobots in your bloodstream.

Be agnostic and a diligent questioner of the authorities, but stop with the declarations. You simply can't be sure.

I think I can be as sure as anything that this pandemic is real and is a natural disease taking a natural course and illuminating the natural, though foolish, resistance to change in given individual and societal systems around the world. There is a natural conservatism to changing - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But damn is a lot broke, so it's a matter of sunk costs making so many people do that quadrupling down and dragging their feet - and the rest of us trying to run between the inert bodies to make our escape from the tidal wave looming overhead.
 
In any case, how is it that the entire alt-spirituality community is so uniformly right wing?

I too am surprised (actually completely baffled) by this. it seems to conflict so deeply with the message that I think comes through loud and clear through NDEs, mediums etc, that we should care and support one another and effectively, together we are stronger. Not that I am far to the left — I’d probably describe myself as a touch left of centre and I find much common ground with those a touch right of centre — it’s the extremes I struggle with. I’m also in the UK which puts me some distance in every sense from Trump et al.

i don’t comment much but I read plenty, both here Michael Prescott and elsewhere & I actually find it incredibly valuable to be exposed to other viewpoints, always have. i can well see and appreciate how someone find themselves on a different part of the political spectrum to me, but the fact that it seems so uniform and mono directional ( and indeed the myriad ways in which Covid has been politicised - especially in the US) makes no sense to me.
 
I too am surprised (actually completely baffled) by this. it seems to conflict so deeply with the message that I think comes through loud and clear through NDEs, mediums etc, that we should care and support one another and effectively, together we are stronger. Not that I am far to the left — I’d probably describe myself as a touch left of centre and I find much common ground with those a touch right of centre — it’s the extremes I struggle with. I’m also in the UK which puts me some distance in every sense from Trump et al.

i don’t comment much but I read plenty, both here Michael Prescott and elsewhere & I actually find it incredibly valuable to be exposed to other viewpoints, always have. i can well see and appreciate how someone find themselves on a different part of the political spectrum to me, but the fact that it seems so uniform and mono directional ( and indeed the myriad ways in which Covid has been politicised - especially in the US) makes no sense to me.

Thank you! I feel exactly the same way! I try very hard to be empathic toward others because I think the NDE communicates that this is a moral imperative and central to why we exist. Being flippant with the well-being of others is a serious no-no according to the NDE accounts I’ve read. I’d wager being flippant about working as a whole to beat this virus and keep our world functioning as well as possible is also a no-no. Letting the house burn down to “protect freedom” seems outrageous to me.
 
Back
Top