NervousCOVID
Image Credit: 

Flickr-SalFalko, CC BY-NC 2.0

Blog

The Cracking Fault Lines of Our ‘Well-Meaning’ COVID Despots

If you’ve been watching closely, you may have seen a number of fault lines widening in the COVID pandemic narrative. These fault lines are vindicating for those convinced of the underhanded dealings of pandemic authorities for many months, and horrifying for those realizing their trust and confidence in authorities was betrayed.

Regardless of which camp you are in, these fault lines paint a good picture of why our experts and authorities have been so effective at entrapping us in the new world of COVID despotism. By allegedly putting the well-being of each citizen first, they effectively put it dead last.

The first example of this is in a recent Wall Street Journal article by Dr. Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine professor. Makary studied data on 48,000 children diagnosed with the virus and discovered otherwise healthy children have a COVID mortality rate of zero, a fact which should comfort the many parents who have lived in terror that their children would catch the virus. “If that trend holds,” Makary declares, “it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses.”

An odd thing has happened, though. The few childhood deaths that have allegedly resulted from COVID have not been thoroughly researched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is unfathomable to Makary, particularly given the debate over whether children should even be vaccinated. Those “eager to get every living American vaccinated are following the CDC without understanding the limitations of the methodology,” he says. In other words, the CDC wants you to be vaccinated because it’s for your own good, never mind that we don’t really know if it’s necessary, or even whether it actually does more good than harm.

Sadly, this lack of information isn’t limited to children. Makary calls out the CDC on their limited information or understanding on a number of COVID aspects. This includes their failure to collect information on the major role underlying health conditions play in COVID deaths, the underreporting of vaccine complications, and even the lack of data on naturally acquired COVID immunity. On that last point Makary says, “The low priority given to this indicator is consistent with how public-health officials have played down and ignored natural immunity in their drive to get everyone vaccinated.”

But while America’s CDC isn’t saying much about natural immunity, other countries are beginning to leak information suggesting it’s far stronger than the vaccine. In Israel, only 1 percent of confirmed new COVID cases since May 1 came from those who had had COVID previously, The Times of Israel reports. Forty percent of these new COVID cases, however, were contracted by vaccinated individuals, a statistic identical to recent data out of the UK. If that data holds, it would seem the vaccine is far less effective than we’ve been told, yet we never would have guessed that based on the information our authorities continually push.

Unfortunately, information related to the vaccine isn’t the only COVID-related instance where our authorities pretend to put our well-being first. Dr. Fauci’s exchange with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY.) in a Senate hearing the other day is a demonstration of this, with Fauci acting like he is taking the moral high ground and calling Paul a liar for the data he presents on gain of function research.

These are only a few of the cracks beginning to show in the COVID narrative, and it’s likely we’ll see many more in the coming weeks. Sadly, they are a sign of what Robert Nisbet called “the greatest single revolution of the last century” in his book, Twilight of Authority. This revolution transfers power from our constitutionally established leaders to “the vast network of power that has been brought into being in the name of protection of the people from their exploiters.” In other words, bureaucrats and other alleged experts who claim to champion our best interests, but refuse to let us have a say in what those best interests are.

Nisbet continues:

It is this kind of power that Justice Brandeis warned against in a decision nearly half a century ago: ‘Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.’
What gives the new despotism its peculiar effectiveness is indeed its liaison with humanitarianism, but beyond this fact is its capacity for entering into the smallest details of human life. (Emphasis added.)


On the surface, our authorities certainly appear well-meaning, but given the information emerging with ever greater rapidity, it seems that at the very least they are sorely misguided. If we want to guard against their encroachments on our liberties, then we must do our own research to make sure their narrative rings true with the data we uncover, rather than comfortably following the crowd to a life under COVID despots.

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist is the editor of Intellectual Takeout. When not writing or editing, she enjoys reading, gardening, and time with family and friends.

Add a Comment

 

Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!

or

Be the first to comment on this article!

X