How to Detoxify the U.S. Health System

Bret Weinstein: "The COVID story reveals the corruption of science, it reveals the corruption of journalism, it reveals the corruption of the university structure. And the consequences are tangible, right? We know people who were injured. It's amazing that we can identify people in our own lives who are actually injured by this, right? This is a an amazing level of harm. So in any case, either one of those is good enough to realize that the entire system has been corrupted and it needs a reboot.. An absolute reboot. And it's not stopping. It doesn't learn. It has no, it's lost stability to learn. It refuses to learn. Refuses to learn. It has educated us. Right. The number of us, you know, the number of doctors I know who were vaccine advocates five years ago and have now become skeptics because they've looked into adjuvants, they've looked into the mRNA platform and they know that the world that they thought they lived in isn't a real place is shocking."

The biggest question of all is how to fix this deeply intransigent thoroughly corrupt system: a cozy monied alliance of industry/government/media that vilifies and financially ruins knowledgable insiders who want to speak up to warn us?

Continue ReadingHow to Detoxify the U.S. Health System

Some of the Reasons Why Public Health Officials Have Completely Lost my Trust

I never used to think about vaccines. I trusted public health officials and I willingly let them put 3 COVID shots into my arms. But now I regret that. In fact I'm furious that we were all lied to and misled by an artificially concocted false consensus that the COVID vax was "safe and effective." Now it is clear that our public health officials lied about almost everything and are still withholding the data about all-cause mortality. Lied about EVERYTHING? That sounds like hyperbole, but here's a starter list.

To me the most concerning issue is a lot of what was considered misinformation was and is true:

    • vaccines don't halt transmission

    • the virus came from a lab

    • cloth masks don't work

    • closing schools is a bad idea

    • toddlers shouldn't masks

    • natural immunity exists

We could add many other items to this already-disturbing list.

And then I learned about this shocking insurance industry data:

The man giving this Congressional testimony isn't some random person. As you can see from the chyron, Edward Dowd was formerly a senior investment advisor at Blackrock.

My mistrust is made even worse thanks to revelations like this on by John Leake, in an article he titles: "The Greatest Coverup in History: NIH Director Francis Collins on EcoHealth Alliance/WIV partnership: "There's a lot more to this story than we have been able to talk about." Here's an excerpt: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSome of the Reasons Why Public Health Officials Have Completely Lost my Trust

Michael Shellenberger Offers Three Questions to Ask Those who Those who “Oppose” Free Speech

What is a good way to get a real conversation going with someone who claims that free speech is a bad thing? Michael Shellenberger offers three questions. His article at Public is titled, "Why These Three Questions Change People's Minds About Censorship." An excerpt:

How you approach the topic will depend on whether you’re talking with a friend or relative or moderating a presidential debate, but it should include affirming shared values. You might say, “There’s been a lot of debate about censorship and misinformation. Most of us, myself included, care a lot about protecting vulnerable people and countering bad information while protecting people’s right to free speech. I’m curious how you think about these issues, and I wondered if I could ask you how you think about them.”

Assuming you get permission to go further, here are the three key questions I would recommend:

First, “Can you think of examples where free speech helped past movements for political independence, civil rights, and human rights succeed?”

This immediately will slow many people down. They’ll be forced to reflect on what they know about those movements. Some will say they don’t know. But it’s unlikely that many people will respond that those movements succeeded thanks to censorship since so few cases exist.

Second, “Can you imagine a future government ever abusing its powers to censor hate speech and misinformation for political reasons?

A recent Australian poll found that voters were evenly split, 37% to 38%, on whether they agreed or disagreed with the question, “Freedom of speech should be protected online, even if this means wrong, inaccurate or false information may be published.”

However, when pollsters asked voters, “How concerned are you that if ‘misinformation’ laws were to be passed, government officials would use these powers for political purposes (for example, to limit public debate and censor certain opinions)?” between 61% and 78% of voters said they were concerned. And it was young people ages 18-24 who said they were most concerned.

The first question required people to think about what they know, and the second asked people to imagine the future. For various reasons, most people do not have a hard time imagining governments abusing their power for political reasons.

Third, “Is the best solution to hate speech and misinformation free speech or censorship?”

Acknowledging that bad guys have used censorship more than good guys throughout history and that future governments might censor for bad reasons, this last question slows people down further to assess the evidence on both sides. People who endorsed censorship a few minutes earlier may have second thoughts and even reversing themselves.

I would add one more question to this list. "If we decide that censorship is OK, who should be in charge of determining what is true?" That often stops people cold, but not always. Two years ago, a law professor (to my dismay) told me that in the case of COVID, the public health officials would get to decide what is true. It didn't seem to bother him that these "experts" got almost everything wrong about COVID. I asked, "What about non-medical issues," and he (I swear he said this) the FBI and CIA should be in charge.

I like Shellenberger's suggested questions. I'm going to start using them in my free speech conversations.

Continue ReadingMichael Shellenberger Offers Three Questions to Ask Those who Those who “Oppose” Free Speech

Matt Taibbi’s Challenge to You

Matt Taibbi gave an extraordinary speech in DC this weekend. I invite everyone to watch his speech or read the transcript.

One of Matt's many quotable lines: "[The use of propaganda is] always someone trying to make you feel bad for their weakness, their mistakes. Don’t be ground down by it. Stand up straight and give it back."

I agree with every word of Tabbi's challenge. We need to speak up often and this includes repeatedly saying "no" to government overreach. When something big monied organizations tell us doesn't make sense, we need to stand up and say so, even when people (including friends and family) tell us we are bad for refusing to belief. Recently, Elites, including John Kerry and Bill Gates have disparaged our founding documents, the ones we purportedly celebrate on Fourth of July. They are now saying out loud that the First Amendment is a problem, rather than a brilliant proven solution to government overreach.

This tyranny and censorship we are facing are invisible to those who lap up their "news" from corporate media. "X" (Twitter) is where you need to go to get better information and alternate perspectives. It's far from perfect because X is a huge tent filled with many types of people, many of them severely wacky. X is also one of the few places where you can find thoughtful people freely conversing with each other, freely challenging the narrative that your government is spending untold millions of $ trying to force-feed you every day. Your own government thinks you aren't smart enough to think for yourself. It's minions talk down to you. They want to be your nanny. They want you get get in line and stop asking questions. They want you to shut the fuck up, even though they got almost EVERYTHING wrong about COVID. You'd think that they would instill some humility, but these are high paid elites who treasure their job security as much as they their conviction that they are so much god-damned smarter than the rest of us. They are close to having the power to intellectually blind and gag us on a scale that would have been unimaginable pre-internet. Truly, we need to stand up every day and say no to this.

Here's a longer excerpt from Taibbi's speech:

Let me pause to say something about America’s current intellectual class, from which the “anti-disinformation” complex comes. By the way: there are no working-class censors, poor censors, hungry censors. The dirty secret of “content moderation” everywhere is that it’s a tiny sliver of the educated rich correcting everyone else. It’s telling people what fork to use, but you can get a degree in it.

America has the most useless aristocrats in history. Even the French dandies marched to the razor by the Jacobins were towering specimens of humanity compared to the Michael Haydens, John Brennans, James Clappers, Mike McFauls and Rick Stengels who make up America’s self-appointed behavior police.

In prerevolutionary France even the most drunken, depraved, debauched libertine had to be prepared to back up an insolent act with a sword duel to the death. Our aristocrats pee themselves at the sight of mean tweets. They have no honor, no belief, no poetry, art, or humor, no patriotism, no loyalty, no dreams, and no accomplishments. They’re simultaneously illiterate and pretentious, which is very hard to pull off.

They have one idea, not even an idea but a sensation: fear. Rightly so, because they snitch each other out at the drop of a hat; they’re afraid of each other, but they’re also terrified of everyone outside their social set and live in near-constant fear of being caught having an original opinion. They believe in the manner of herd animals, who also live whole lives without knowing an anxiety-free minute: they believe things with blinding zeal until 51% change their minds, and then like deer the rest bolt in that direction. We saw that with the Biden is sharp as a tack/No, Biden must step aside for the Politics of Joy switch.

I grew up a liberal Democrat and can’t remember having even most of the same beliefs as my friends. Now, millions of alleged intellectuals claim identical beliefs about vast ranges of issues and this ludicrous mass delusion is the precondition for “disinformation studies,” really the highly unscientific science of punishing deviation from the uniform belief set — what another excommunicated liberal, my friend Thomas Frank, calls the “Utopia of Scolding.”

“Freedom of speech” is a beautiful phrase, strong, optimistic. It has a ring to it. But it’s being replaced in the discourse by “disinformation” and “misinformation,” words that aren’t beautiful but full of the small, pettifogging, bureaucratic anxiety of a familiar American villain: the busybody, the prohibitionist, the Nosey Parker, the snoop.

H.L. Mencken defined Puritanism as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy.” That streak of our early European settlers unfortunately survives in us and keeps surfacing through moral panics. Four hundred years ago it was witches, then it was Catholic immigrants, then “the devil’s music,” comic books, booze, communists, and now, information.

Because “freedom of speech” is now frequently described as a stalking horse for hate and discrimination — the UN High Commissioner Volker Türk scolded Elon Musk that “free speech is not a free pass” — it’s becoming one of those soon-to-be-extinct terms. Speech is mentioned in “reputable” media only as a possible vector for the informational disease known as misinformation. Soon all that will remain of the issue for most people is a flutter of the nerves, reminding them to avoid thinking about it.

The end game is not controlling speech. They’re already doing that. The endgame is getting us to forget we ever had anything to say . . .

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi’s Challenge to You

The Elites are Increasingly Saying What They Are Thinking.

They are increasingly saying the quiet part out loud. The problem is that too many Americans want to think for themselves and they think that they are in some sort of democracy. And then there is that damned First Amendment that keeps us elites from controlling all the information.

I fear that they are brashly saying these things because they are confident that they are about to take down X (Twitter), which would mean they actually would control essentially all national dialogue.

Continue ReadingThe Elites are Increasingly Saying What They Are Thinking.