When is a lie based on ‘good intentions’ so egregious that the party or parties responsible be given no quarter?
There have been many events in recent years where the damage to society is immense and long-lasting, but those who caused it are given a mere slap on the wrist.
This is why public trust in authorities is plummeting. Almost half of the world’s population considers government and the media as divisive forces in society.
And things are going to get uglier when the people realise they were deceived for so long.
On Monday, a major bombshell dropped in the European Union Parliament as the Pfizer executives fronted members to answer questions relating to their vaccines. The President of International Developed Markets Janine Small admitted that the company never tested the vaccines for its effectiveness in stopping the transmission of the Wuhan virus (or its variants) before they distributed it worldwide.
There have been many controversies related to these vaccines in the last two years. However, this one really took the prize for its absurdity.
You can hear the exchange between the Dutch MEP Rob Roos and Janine Small in this clip. The full parliamentary hearing (minus this clip, which was removed possibly due to YouTube censorship) is available here.
It may be difficult for you to fathom what you just heard.
But let me tell you one thing.
You are watching the pivotal moment where the pharmaceutical companies, the medical profession, and the public health industry reveal the depths of their dishonesty, incompetence, and cowardice.
Let me discuss how we got here and what you should do in light of this stunning revelation.
A culture of ignorance, complacency, and exploitation
Regardless of your stance on the pandemic and the measures for dealing with it, it’s important to understand that we all have a part in this massive bungle.
First is our wilful ignorance.
We didn’t do our bit in assessing the pros and cons of individual and collective action, preferring to leave it to someone else to decide for us. In this case, the collective decisions left lasting damage to our society.
Second is our (smug) complacency.
We defer to experts and bureaucrats to think for us. How many people fell for the trap of groupthink and sought to silence or mock the dissenters (many being vindicated now for daring to question or raise doubts about the consensus view)?
Then there’s exploitation.
We observed people taking the opportunity to profit financially through their informational and positional advantage or simply signalling their virtues as a means to garner vain attention.
An atmosphere of fear can paralyse people into believing what experts and officials tell them. Remember news channels plastering wall-to-wall counts of infections, hospitalisations, and death statistics?
Where are they now?
And let’s ask ourselves how severe the pandemic actually was?
Take a look here and see the count of how many people went to hospital or died in Australia from the virus up until 2021. Compare that with the same for this year.
Perplexed?
The entire world panicked because the government and health officials worked with the news media to create that mood. And the numbers right now would warrant more concerns if we apply the principle of consistency.
If anything, I believe that there’s a lot we have to learn about exercising our discernment when the world is gripped by hysteria.
The flaw of ‘settled science’
If I were to pinpoint what was the greatest crime regarding the pandemic, it’d be our fascination with science.
I understand that many believe that faith and spirituality are dogmatic. They believe in a scientific method to study problems and formulate solutions.
However, science itself became a cult. People are misled into believing a peer-reviewed article is infallible. As long as someone uses the word ‘science’ in their claims and the study has a mere resemblance to a scientific study; it’s beyond reproach.
To question that makes you a ‘science-denier’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’, you’d be excluded from polite society.
Never mind the fact that data is selective, incomplete, and even fabricated.
Let me show you an example of how a study that recently appeared in the top scientific journal, Nature, disguises subjective and flawed categorisation to reach its conclusions.
This article studied the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing the transmission of the Delta and Omicron variants of the virus for Danish households. It concluded that more boosters could help prevent the transmission of the Omicron variant, given it is more contagious.
If you scroll to Table 2 and actually look at the table, you’ll find the following:
|
|
| Source: Nature |
The authors combined partially vaccinated subjects (a vague and variable definition) with those who didn’t take one and included those who didn’t take any into the fully vaccinated category if they had been ill before!
Basically, they were muddying the water.
I’m sure these scientists have their reasons justifying why they engaged in such categorisations. But since we’ve found out that it’s possible for people to experience reinfections or breakthrough infections, whether vaccinated or otherwise, makes this categorisation moot.
What am I pointing out here?
The science is not objective; therefore, there is nothing ‘settled’ about it.
But why would the authors care? Their paper is now published in a top-tier journal, and policymakers will cite this paper as proof to (mis)inform their policies.
And many wouldn’t know better.
The hammer of justice dangles
The stunning revelation by Pfizer that they had bluffed — while governments, public health officials, and the general public went along with it — is not going to go quietly.
At best, there’ll be court battles and a civil way to settle the scores.
I wonder which side will prevail in the blame game — the pharmaceutical companies that perpetrated the fraud or the insurance companies that are supposed to pay the damages?
At worst, expect significant public outrage to spread and possible civil unrest. People have been on edge, losing their livelihoods. To find out this was a scam and it was perpetrated at such levels could cause anger to manifest in ugly ways.
So what should you do?
Don’t sit and wait for the scores to settle.
Start informing yourself better. Let me introduce to you our renowned strategic analyst, Jim Rickards.
He doesn’t fear being the odd man out. He’s seen numerous crises unfold and was even involved in diffusing them.
You want someone to help you adjust the way you listen to and critically analyse the news. Because there’s nothing worse than making the wrong decisions and finding out later that you cannot undo the damage.
Our service also has a portfolio solution to help you navigate through the crisis. Check it out here.
Take care and stay awake!
God bless,
 |
Brian Chu,
Editor, The Daily Reckoning Australia
