MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
The other day, I took a Lyft to work because my car had a check engine light that turned on and I didnundefinedt want to risk it breaking down. When the car arrived, I noticed that the driver had one of those huge plastic barriers attached to his seats.
It made it awkward to get inside.
I said to the driver that there was a report in the news that has said that these barriers are worthless. He said with a huff, that he did not hear the report and that he feels that it is better to be safe than sorry.
I decided not to argue with the guy, even though I had the urge to keep the conversation going.
According to the New York Times, undefinedscientists who study aerosols, air flow and ventilation say that much of the time, the barriers don’t help and probably give people a false sense of security. And sometimes the barriers can make things worse.undefined
In addition to stifling airflow and ventilation, the barriers can deflect germs to innocent bystanders such as another worker or customer.
undefinedUnder normal conditions in stores, classrooms and offices, exhaled breath particles disperse, carried by air currents and, depending on the ventilation system, are replaced by fresh air roughly every 15 to 30 minutes. But erecting plastic barriers can change air flow in a room, disrupt normal ventilation and create “dead zones,” where viral aerosol particles can build up and become highly concentrated.
This is yet another example of security theater that most people knew was ineffective against COVID-19.
I actually thought to myself, that when history is written about this time, they will laugh at us and how we believed that this prevented that, and that something else was harmful and worthless.
Someone made a hell of a lot of money installing plexiglass in restaurants and schools, all because we have to make it look like we are doing something to prevent the spread.
I am sure that many well intended owners of the establishments that used plexiglass were mandated to do so undefined just to be up to code, just so they could keep their businesses running.
Which reminds me of this scam I see being advertised all over and that is this “Well Health Safety Seal.”
Lady Gaga, Jennifer Lopez, Michael B. Jordan, Robert DeNiro, Venus Williams, Wolfgang Puck, Deepak Chopra and 17th Surgeon General Richard Carmona are now part of an integrated ad campaign to raise awareness about the importance of the WELL Health-Safety Rating.
What they are pitching that people need to see a WELL Health-Safety Rating Sticker on a business or building in general to know that it is “safe.”
The reality is that business owners pay thousands of dollars so they can put up some security theater sticker endorsed by celebrities.
Basically, we have celebrities telling us what businesses we should and should not patronize.
A deeper dive into the company offers some more specifics. In order for a building to receive the Well Health-Safety Rating, it must meet at least 15 of 22 criteria related to sanitation procedures, emergency preparedness programs, air and water quality, and health service resources. That said, this isn’t just a rating from a Health Department — if you want an evaluation and subsequent WELL Health-Safety Rating, there’s a cost. According to the company’s website, the designation costs anywhere between $2,730 and $12,600, depending on the size of the building and the revenue of its businesses.
And there is the fine print in the ad that states:
“The WELL Health-Safety Seal is awarded after an annual review of a building’s written policies and protocols,” a disclaimer reads. “Achievement of the WELL Health-Safety Rating does not guarantee that a space is safe or free from pathogens.”
So we are to conclude that this is nothing more than clever marketing to promote an extortion scam.
I find it interesting that the FCC allows a commercial to pose as a Public service announcement conning businesses into participating in a marketing scheme.
Either pony up the ‘protection money’ to purchase a ‘Well Health Safety Seal’, or you will not be allowed to ‘return to normal life’ until you do.
Such talk isn’t about health, and it certainly isn’t about “science.” It’s a police-state project, pure and simple – built out of public hysteria, which has no moral or binding legitimacy.
When experts or agencies deliver information to the public that they consider possibly or definitively false to further a larger, agenda, they are telling what is called a noble lie. Although the teller’s intentions may be pure—for example, a feeling of urgency that behavioral change is needed among the lay public—the consequences can undermine not only those intentions but also public trust in experts and science.
Noble lies, no matter how well intention they are or perceived to be are still lies.
We must ask ourselves whether the current mass vaccination campaign is a science-based effort to relieve sickness and disease or a fast track to a dark and frightening dystopia conjured up by evil men seeking to tighten their grip on all humanity.
I am sure people see these vaccines as cures, used with the best of intentions. But the vaccine is not a cure, it is only a treatment, it is being used to try and create herd immunity for a virus that is evolving, just like influenza and other respiratory diseases.
It looks as if it is here to stay and now, we are told by Dr. Fauci that we will not see any kind of normalcy until the spring of 2022 and that is if the majority of the country gets a vaccine.
We could get back to normal now, only if we want to, and understand that we can still vaccinate voluntarily without the use of coercion, emotional blackmail and job mandates.
President Biden pulled a dirty trick by telling businesses to require vaccines as a condition for employment. he says that now that the FDA has approved the use of the vaccine undefined businesses can now require vaccines without any reprisal.
However, there is also mounting concern among health experts about breakthrough infections in already-vaccinated people, an event that administration officials say is still very rare but can be prevented if more people are immunized.
The Catch 22 is that businesses can now require vaccines, but are they willing to face lawsuits from people who take it and then get sick or have severe side effects?
Biden this month mandated vaccinations or routine testing for millions of federal workers and the Pentagon said Monday morning that it would require them for active military.
The president said that more than 170 million people in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against the virus, while 30 million more have gotten at least one shot of the two-dose regimen. Six million shots were administered in the most recent seven-day period the highest week total since mid-June.
There seems to be a question of whether or not this is a full FDA approval or if it is just an extension of the Emergency Use Authorization of the vaccine.
The language used by the FDA makes it unclear -as the say the EUA has been extended to include those 12 through 15 years of age.
FDA approval was considered the only thing that kept skeptics from moving forward with plans to vaccinate. now it will be interesting to see if it sways anyone into getting it.
Roughly 30 percent of holdouts polled recently by Kaiser Family Foundation said they would be more likely to get a fully approved shot than an emergency authorized dose.
But here is the most interesting part of all undefined many people who were polled did not know that the Pfizer shot was not approved by the FDA until now.
This is evident that people have been taking this vaccine thinking that it was FDA approved when it wasnundefinedt.
Does this bother you? It most certainly bothers me, because it worried me that the media and the information that had been distributed was misleading and confirms what conspiracy theorists have said all along.
The entire vaccine agenda has been full of lies and half-truths, which spins a lot of mistrust in people.
Experts on infectious diseases are not necessarily experts on social behavior.
Deliberate misleading messages are backfiring, and the blame again is thrown at those who are skeptical.
Key opinion leaders, agencies, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all articulated some version of “once you are vaccinated, nothing changes,” implying that experts did not know if it was safe to relax precautions and restrictions, such as mask wearing or social distancing, after immunization.
But the stance was immediately called into question by others, including epidemiologists, who pointed to the high efficacy of the vaccines and suggested that some, but not all, social distancing measures could be relaxed in certain circumstances. Ultimately, the “no change” message, which may have been intended to discourage mass gatherings or out of a fear that unvaccinated people would lie about their vaccination status, may itself have been harmful.
On June 4, using data from February to March, the agency made the case that hospitalizations were rising in adolescents. It tweeted, “The report shows the importance of #COVID19 vaccination for adolescents.”
That tweet spurred a great deal of media attention and concern. It was true that hospitalization rates had risen. However, at the time of the press coverage, hospitalization rates in this age group had already fallen again. Numerous commenters immediately pointed out that the “rise” in hospitalization statistic promoted by the CDC was out of date the moment it was highlighted and raised questions about why the CDC would promote a dated statistic, when the organization had access to up-to-date information.
This obvious error was compounded weeks later during a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee met to discuss what we knew and did not know about heart inflammation, or myocarditis, that had been linked to mRNA vaccination, and most notable in young men who received the vaccine. During the course of the meeting, representatives of the CDC showed a model that claimed that vaccination of young adults was preferable to the disease itself.
There were, however, several concerns with this model. First, it used rates of community SARS-CoV-2 spread that again were out of date. By the time of the meeting, the rates were lower, meaning the benefits of vaccination would be reduced, but the harms remain the same. Second, it did not consider the risks separately for boys and girls, who appear to have substantially different risk of myocarditis (much higher in boys). Third, it did not consider any middle ground positions, such as only receiving one dose of the vaccine, which provides much of the benefit with far lower myocarditis risk. Instead, the CDC presented zero or two doses as the only options. Fourth, the modeling did not consider natural immunity—i.e., the vaccine’s risk to kids who already recovered from COVID-19 might be the same, but the benefits far lower (as these children have some natural immunity). Finally, the model did not consider the fact that young adults with preexisting medical conditions and those who are otherwise well might have different risk benefit profiles, as the former account for a disproportionate number of COVID-19 hospitalizations.
Together, these are all information choices made by government agencies and/or officials about vaccination of young adults. Amplifying out-of-date statistics and building a model to support vaccination that has questionable assumptions work to support rapid deployment of two doses of mRNA to all healthy kids aged 12 to 17. That may be the CDC’s policy pursuit, and one we are sympathetic to. However, distorting evidence to achieve this result is a noble lie.
Accurately reporting current risks to adolescents, and exploring other dosing possibilities, is part of the unbiased scientific exploration of data.
The struggle for truth and freedom heats up and with it comes the responsibility to be aware of knee jerk and wild ideas that are being touted as cures or even treatments for COVID-19.
It is important to realize that even though many people are skeptical of the vaccine and the chemicals that are in it undefined there seems to be a double standard that is rearing its head as people are taking Ivermectin that is meant for horses and cows.
We need to be careful of muddled messages and graded language that concedes important ground.
We need to focus on a few crucial points in everything we do, whether to friends, family or the world at large.
The media and health experts want to find different ways to vilify those who are hesitant in getting the vaccine and I am beginning to think that most people never even thought of contacting their doctors when getting the jab undefined or even when they go to the local feed store to purchase Ivermectin.
Admittedly, we live in crazy times and I am sure many people see that as an excuse to act crazy or desperate.
You canundefinedt make the argument that you refuse the vaccine because you donundefinedt want strange chemicals in your body and then go and take a dewormer without knowing what it will do to you.
I want to be clear that while Ivermectin is a known treatment for COVID-19 and some doctors including Dr. Robert Malone say it works undefined it is not smart to put anything in your body without knowing what it will do to you. Malone says that the cattle and horse formulations should not be used to treat COVID-19.
Ivermectin is not a perfect drug but it is approved by the FDA and doctors are being told not to prescribe it for early treatments.
This is a result of people being blocked from getting early and effective therapies because their doctors are told not to prescribe it and the pharmacies will not fill it.
We need to also recognize that the media is also blowing this out of proportion to scare people and coerce them into getting the vaccine.
Yes it is confusing and it is meant to be.
It is beginning to look as if people should watch mindless TV shows instead of the news and turn off their smart phone.
This way they donundefinedt hear the news reports that are now the simplest form of mind control.
Now that the media has succeeded in terrifying the vast majority of people, we are seeing a lot of cure seekers that are open to suggestion vulnerable to propaganda, crouched with bayoneted rifle in trench against an unavoidable, invisible particle. Always willing to try anything at the expense of their own health and well-being.
In addition to the mental damage of lockdown by industrial scale fear-mongering there is another mentally-destructive duality: the poorly-evidenced and irrational use of substances that have side effects that can harm the body just as much as the vaccines do.
The authorities have created a parallel pandemic of assorted neuroses and mental health illnesses that are forcing people into taking desperate measure to avoid the jab and in the process opening the door to abuses of other drugs that are arguably harmful to the human body.
The experimental use of Ivermectin, without a doctorundefineds supervision is a product of all of the contradictions and correction.
It would not be so bad if there were a traditional vaccine that was non-experimental, safe and well-proven. But there isn’t. Rather than meddling with eight billion people’s immune systems unnecessarily, it would be better to let the infection run its course and accept the fact that it has become endemic undefined the response has now reached a point of overkill, and overreach.
Authoritarian control is making the jump from fiction to reality.
Exaggerating the risk of the virus in the moment and failing to explore middle ground positions is what is creating a schism -and this is leading to people playing doctor and the media using it against them.
You eliminate options and people will go and find things that may not be good for them.
Public health messaging is predicated on trust, which overcomes the enormous complexity of the scientific literature, creating an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively.
Still, violation of this trust renders the communication unreliable. When trust is shattered, messaging is no longer clear and straightforward, and instead results in the people trying to reverse-engineer the statement based on their view of the speaker’s intent. Simply put, lies and coercion can rob confidence from the public, leading to confusion, a loss of credibility, conspiracy theories, and obfuscated policy.
All of these problems we are seeing now are because the media and others have eliminated the middle ground in the discussions about useful measures to treat COVID-19 and this should be a matter of concern.
The general population is far too skeptical to blindly follow the advice of experts, and far too intelligent to be easily duped.
Ivermectin has no really bad side effects and it doesnundefinedt react with many drugs but it should only be taken under a doctorundefineds care.
