Do not trust the corporate media.
We must be skeptical of sources that are proven liars.
Right now, there is a debate going on through society. There are two sides.
One side says: "This situation is WAY WORSE than you think it is."
The other says: "It's NOT AS BAD as you think it is."
Which one to believe?
Well, the first one - the FEAR FEAR FEAR side - the corporate media - has been lying to us since we were born. They're the ones who lied about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, and about "Saddam working with Al-Qaeda." And you know they were lying, and not just "making mistakes", because when they were finally found out, what did they do? Did they fire the people who got it wrong? No. They fired the people who got it RIGHT. Phil Donahue was one of the only people in media who questioned the narrative, and MSNBC fired him. Ashley Banfield was another, and she was fired too.
And what about others, outside of the mainstream, who proved their smarts by getting it right? Do corporate news networks ever bring them on? Do they ever invite Medea Benjamin from Code Pink to come on their shows and explain the lies behind imperialism? Do they ever invite on ANYONE from the anti-war side? ANYONE who got it CORRECT? Nope.
Meanwhile, the loudest cheerleaders for war, who lied to us, year after year, faced no accountability whatsoever. Most of them got PROMOTIONS and PAY RAISES. They failed UP.
That proves that the corporate news networks not only lie, but they KNOW they lie, and it's the WHOLE POINT.
They've also been gaslighting us about Bernie Sanders for the past 5 years, gaslighting us about Medicare-for-All not being "affordable", gaslighting us about progressive political ideas, gaslighting us about Joe Biden not being a rapist (despite CAMERA FOOTAGE of him groping people) and not having dementia (despite CAMERA FOOTAGE of his brain melting mid-sentence), and gaslighting us about the DNC being "neutral" and not rigging the primaries. They have done nothing but gaslight us, for DECADES.
If you suddenly want to start trusting them now... just because there's a "new scary thing"... well... that's your prerogative. But if you choose that path, you're choosing the path of emotion - not logic.
#4 Listen to others, including those you disagree with.
Before we can formulate an exact response, we must be willing to evaluate information from multiple sources, and listen to all sides of a debate.
To be logical in our thinking, and to have confidence that the course we've identified as the most logical course is indeed the most logical - then we must be open to communication and discussion, including with people whose ideas are new and different from ours. Including people we think are wrong.
There is no harm in listening to those we think are wrong.
If they really are wrong, then their ideas can be defeated on grounds of logic. You can actually defeat a bad idea, by exposing the flaws in its reasoning. And if you do that, then it puts the question to rest, and people will no longer be wondering if that bad idea may have had merits to it after all (because you just debunked it with logic, for all to see). You have nothing to fear form bringing a bad idea out into the open. Exposure is what allows it to be conclusively debunked.
Consciousness and rational discourse are like sunlight. They disinfect minds from bad ideas.
And there's yet another reason to entertain "wrong" ideas, too. And it's the fact that they might actually be right - and you might be the one who's been wrong! Your ideas might have flaws, and if they do, don't you want them pointed out?
You have to listen to other people in order to notice the flaws in your ideas. Noticing the flaws in ones ideas is hard to do, and it requires a fairly sophisticated level of mindfulness. And thankfully there's a short cut: other peoples criticism. If someone is telling you that your ideas don't stand up in the light of rational scrutiny, it's fairly possible that they might have a point, and listening to them could do the job of ten years worth of meditation and introspection. You can easily find out what you've been wrong about all this time.
This is how intellectually honest people operate. And if there was ever a time for us to be intellectually honest, it's now.
Here's an example: Michael Levitt.
Michael is a Nobel laureate (2013) who is saying the pandemic is NOT going to be nearly as devastating as the media says.
We're not talking about a random schmuck with a Dunning-Kreuger complex, who thinks he's an expert just because he has a Facebook page! We're talking about a Nobel laureate.
This guy predicted the full trajectory of the virus in China. That includes:
-the total number of cases
-the timeline of those cases' development
-the point in time when it would "peak" (i.e. the "flattening of the curve")
-the total number of fatalities
He predicted all this for China, and he was accurate on that last subject (fatalities) to within 5 persons. That is incredible.
And when it comes to the USA, he's predicting far less doom and gloom than other so-called "experts."
And he's not the only one questioning the "official" numbers and predictions.
Here is Kim Iversen, a radio personality who has compiled lists of statistics that throw cold water on the "doom and gloom" fantasies you're hearing from the TV. She compiles her numbers from scientists (e.g. virologists, epidemiologists) at respected research institutions, from multiple countries (USA, Germany, China, Sweden), who are saying that this "virus" is vastly less deadly than we thought.
That video is from mid-March, and the numbers she cited have turned out to be accurate.
Here's one that's more up-to-date (April):
The experts she cites are doctors and scientists at leading institutions.
One of them is Dr. John Ioannidis, the co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center and professor of medicine, biomedical data science, statistics, and epidemiology and population health at Stanford University.
Not a schmuck with a Facebook page.
A STANFORD PROFESSOR.
Not only does he say that the mass-media's numbers are wrong, but that they're scandalous. He believes that, months from now, the biggest scandal in the world will be how the world's governments locked us in our houses, shut down the economy, and caused massive social unrest because of an unsupported model with horrible methodology. He calls it an "evidence fiasco." Have a listen:
Once again... Stanford Professor... not Facebook schmuck.
Just in case you needed one more reminder.
And here's another one. His name is Wolfgang Wodarg:
Not a Facebook schmuck.
The common thread among all of them is this:
The "doom and gloom" being peddled by governments and corporate media is all based on one study - one model - a computer model - conducted by one institution: The Imperial College of London.
The "millions of deaths" and the "we're all gonna die" crap is based on one study.
It's referred to as the "imperial model" (after the Imperial College).
And its methodology is horrendously flawed. We'll get into the how and the why further down this page, in Point #4.
And now that other scientists and researchers are putting out other models, the consensus is coalescing around the idea that we really, really, really, REALLY overreacted. This "virus" might be less of a threat than the flu.
And now, even the authors of the Imperial model admits he might have made a boo-boo:
Imperial College scientist who predicted 500K coronavirus deaths in UK adjusts figure to 20K or fewer
Looks like the scare-mongers might have gotten it wrong.
Do you have to believe us?
No. That's the point! Don't just "believe" people. Think about their words, and run them through the lens of rational scrutiny.
Don't automatically believe - but do listen. There is nothing that can harm you just be listening, as long as you evaluate their words logically before reaching your own conclusions.
Listen. Listen to a wide variety of viewpoints.
Examine the "narrative" of COVID19 with a critical eye.
There are many ways in which the "official" narrative of what's going on does not make sense. The numbers do not add up, and there are numerous "plot holes" in the story. It does appear that we are being lied to and manipulated in several important ways.