top of page

"What makes you think YOU'RE so smart?

Are you smarter than the EXPERTS?

Do you know more about viruses than


What gives YOU the right to argue with SCIENTISTS?"



There is a Narrative to the Covid story. It goes like this:


  1. There is a brand new virus

  2. It’s extremely deadly

  3. It transmits asymptomatically

  4. There are no cures for it

  5. Masks stop it, kind of

  6. Lockdowns are based in science

  7. The injections are vaccines

  8. The injections are beneficial

  9. Following the rules will get us out of this


This is a narrative.  We’ll call it the Lockstep narrative, because almost all governments, media, and big business are in lockstep with it, questioning no part of it.


And SOME studies, purporting to be scientific, support the elements of this narrative.


But most do not. The vast majority of scientific studies conducted to investigate these questions have turned out AGAINST this narrative.


Most studies show that the fatality rate is close to that of seasonal flu.

Most studies show that it doesn’t transmit asymptomatically.

Most studies show a plethora of safe cures that work nearly perfectly.

Most studies show masks do more harm than good, and lockdowns are idiotic.

Most scientists say these injections are not vaccines, and not beneficial.


Yes. Most.


The Lockstep narrative is supported by only the MINORITY of scientific data. The majority of the data contradict it.


But here’s the problem:


The TELEVISION only talks about the minority, and ignores the majority.


And since the TV only talks about the minority – those affirming the Lockstep narrative – it appears to the public that those studies are the majority… even though they’re the minority.


Because the TV chooses them.


Meanwhile, it spitefully dismisses the others - the majority of studies - as “bad science” at best, and “conspiracy theories” at worst.


To recap:  The TV presents you with the MINORITY of studies, claiming them as the gold standard, and denigrates the MAJORITY as “dangerous misinformation.”


With TV, government, and big business all agreeing in lockstep, and bombarding billions of people with the same message nonstop for months (now years), the public perception has been easily skewed to view the minority as the true set.


The vast majority of studies prove the narrative wrong, but most people don’t SEE them.


Furthermore, since Big Pharma is the main entity with enough money to conduct studies, an additional bias arises from the fact that they simply won’t fund studies that are likely to contradict their narrative. So even if a study COULD HAVE supplied data that contradicts Lockstep, such a study would likely not even be conducted in the first place.


And in science, you don’t find what you’re not looking for.


And finally, the worst aspect of all of this: Censorship.


The scientists and doctors who want to speak out, about how wrong this all is, are being censored, intimidated, and threatened into silence.  If a medical professional disputes ANY aspect of the Lockstep narrative, he or she faces:


  1. Ridicule from colleagues

  2. Workplace “disciplinary” action

  3. Demotion

  4. Firing

  5. Media pillory

  6. Accusations of being rightwing, an extremist, a Trumpist, etc.

  7. License revocation. 


That’s right. A professional who disputes Lockstep can have their medical license revoked by their regulatory body.


And even if they do find the courage to speak, Big Tech will simply censor them so you can’t even hear their words.


And the TV will definitely NOT give them an interview. 


With such danger of personal professional consequences, how do you expect everyone who wants to speak, to speak?


With such censorship, how do you expect to SEE or HEAR them, even if they do find the courage to speak?


The debate is obviously being skewed by all of this interference. This is not science.


Censorship skews public perception of the nature of a debate. That’s what it’s designed to do. That’s its purpose. They don’t just censor people to “be meanies.” They censor people to skew the public’s perception of where the true CONSENSUS sits.


If you censor everyone on one side of a debate, and only allow voices from one and not the other, then OBVIOUSLY it’s going to LOOK like the side you didn’t censor is the more mainstream, more popular, and more accurate side. Meanwhile, the side you censored will seem unpopular, fringe, and “out there.”  NOT because almost nobody believes it, but because almost everybody who believes it was CENSORED.


This is not rocket science, people. 


If you believe in Free Speech, and open scientific discourse, then it’s NOT ENOUGH to simply condemn censorship. You have to also FACTOR IN THE EFFECTS of that censorship, upon the actual DEBATE.


In other words, you have to assume, that the censorship is having an effect – having its INTENDED effect – and skewing your perception of where the true consensus on the matter lies. Upon noticing censorship happening, you must assume that the true consensus sits further in the direction of the censored side that you thought or think. Even if the censored side SEEMS crazy, out-there, or non-credible, you have to assume that THIS VERY FEELING is the result of the skewing effect that the censorship exerted, and that your own feelings on the matter have been manipulated by it – and adjust them accordingly.







You follow the scientists you follow, solely because the corporate boardrooms at Comcast, Viacom, and Disney approve of them. 


Does being on TV make a scientist more credible than one who's not on TV? What is it about TV that bestows this authority?







"Because if there's a debate, mine would win."


Then why don't yours want to debate?


They don't. They avoid debates like the plague. They're more afraid of dissent and contravening data than they are of the actual virus.


My scientists debate. They offer to debate your scientists. But your scientists don't want to. Instead, they pressure social media companies to ban and censor my scientists. And that's how they "win."


My scientists wage the fight through discussion. Yours wage it through preventing discussion.


Mine debunk bad science. Yours silence the debunkers, so that no one can hear them debunk.


Mine offer counterarguments to your arguments. Yours don't offer counterarguments. They simply stop my side's arguments from reaching the audience. 


Your scientists shout nasty words and labels at my scientists. They call my scientists "conspiracy theorists." They use dozens of different insulting terms, like kook, quack, crazy, unhinged, paranoid, and so many other things.


These words are operant-conditioning triggers. They've trained you, over many years, to instantly shut down your intellectual curiosity the moment you hear one of these words. And most people close their minds the instant they hear one, and stop listening. The moment one of my scientists starts speaking, one of yours starts throwing these words at him or her, and all possibility for honest debate ceases. Yours will usually walk away the moment mine try to have a real conversation. Yours don't want to debate.

bottom of page