Covid: "But the SCIENTISTS Say There's a Pandemic!"

Note: For the complete "Table of Contents" of objections to the pandemic being a psyop (psychological operation) following the shock-doctrine playbook, and a full explanation of how and why it was deployed, and what its architects are seeking from it, and how to defeat them, visit our main page on covid.

Objection #3:

"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?"


I'm not arguing with the scientists. The scientists agree with me.

"LOL. What scientists might THOSE be?"

Shall we list them?

Dr. John Ioannidis - Stanford University professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg - medical doctor, member of the Bundestag (German parliament) from 1994 to 2009, Chair of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Michael Levitt - a South African-born[2]biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, a position he has held since 1987.[14][15] Levitt received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry,[16] together with Martin Karplus and Arieh Warshel, for "the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems".[17][18][19][20]

Dr. Rashid Buttar - medical doctor

Dr. Sunetra Gupta - medical doctor

Dr. Simone Gold - medical doctor

Dr. Stella Immanuel - medical doctor

Dr. Pamela Popper - medical doctor

Dr. Dolores Cahill - Professor, University College Dublin

Prof. Cahill received her degree in Molecular Genetics from Trinity College Dublin (1989) and her PhD in Immunology from Dublin City University in 1994. She was group leader of the Protein Technology Group in the Max-Planck-Institute of Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany (1996-2003) She co-founded a biotechnology company, Protagen AG ( in Dortmund to commercialise this technology. Since 2005, she is Professor of Translational Science at the UCD School of Medicine and Medical Sciences.

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi - specialist in microbiology, professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, and one of the most cited research scientists in German history

Dr. Joel Kettner - professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

Frank Ulrich Montgomery - is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.

Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.

Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center

Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration. He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.

* * *

"OK, so those are some scientists. And they agree with you. Duly noted.

But why are THEY so special? Why should I believe YOUR set of scientists, when there are others agreeing with the consensus narrative?"

I listen to the scientists I listen to, because what they say makes sense. It's internally consistent. I take their claims, and I run them through my filter of rational scrutiny.

I ask, "Does this stand up in the light of Reason? Does it adhere to the principles of logic? Would Mr. Spock approve of it? Is it logical, Captain?"

You listen to the scientists you listen to, because they're on TV.

That's it.

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?

"But it's not just in this country. It's all over the world. In every country, the scientists are saying the pandemic is super real and serious..."

And again, those countries have scientists who are on my side.


But what?

"But... they're not... on TV."

Exactly. Just like in this country, in all other countries, there are scientists who agree that the pandemic is overblown and possibly a downright scam, but they're not allowed on TV. Meanwhile, the ones who tow the line and confirm the mainstream narrative are invited to speak on TV. It's not a country-by-country issue. It's simply a "who's on TV - vs. - who's not on TV" issue. In every country.

"But... But... Your scientists are still wrong."

How do you know?

"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.

"But it's still the majority of scientists are on my side."

How do you know the majority are on your side? Have you measured this scientifically? Have you done a survey (a scientific one) to assess the true distribution of opinions among the scientific community regarding the nature and seriousness of the alleged pandemic?


Then you're not basing your assessment on science. Just your "general feeling" of how scientists, in general, generally feel, in general. Based on your feeling.

"Yes, you're right. But still... it's obvious. Way more scientists are on my side than on yours."

How. Do. You. Know. ?

"OK, just look at Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube for instance. I'd say at least 90% of the scientists (including practicing doctors) on those platforms say the pandemic is real and serious and the methods of governments are on the up-and-up, and masks and lockdowns work."

Of course, because Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube CENSOR THE SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE.

If they're CENSORING my scientists, then OF COURSE it's going to look like there's not a lot of them, and they're not very vocal. Because they're GETTING CENSORED.


This is not a secret. The social media companies are OPEN about their censorship.

They announce it in their Terms of Service.

They announce it in notifications.

They actively delete posts.

After repeat "violations," they delete the entire account.

Congress pressured them, multiple times, into doing this. You can watch the hearings on C-SPAN. You can see congresspeople, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and many Democrats, scolding the CEO's of these companies for "not censoring enough."

This is public knowledge. They censor the information on my side.

And that censorship has CONSEQUENCES! It creates a perception that the majority consensus is on your side. That "feeling" that you have, that you're the majority - that's BECAUSE OF THE CENSORSHIP OF MY SIDE. That's the whole POINT of it!!!

Let's look at this scientifically:

You have an observation. You observe that a lot more people on social media agree with you than with me.

We'll call that Observation Y.

And you're making a hypothesis that it's caused by Variable X: the actual beliefs of humanity (and the scientific community in particular) regarding the alleged pandemic.

But there are other factors. Other variables. In science, they're called confounding variables. They may also be responsible for Observation Y. And before you make a conclusion, you have to control for those variables.

And before you can control for them, you have to identify what they are.

So what are they?

Censorship. Academic intimidation. Violence.

Your scientists censor my scientists, on social media. My scientists can get their accounts deleted for speaking. They can get fired from their jobs, and punished academically. Their grants can dry up. They can lose their medical licenses, just for sharing their scientific analyses, if those analyses conflict with the narrative promoted by the TV scientists.

How many of my scientists are holding their tongues, because of this? How many agree with me, but tow your line publicly, for fear of institutional retaliation? How many simply bow their heads and keep silent? How many would gladly speak up in agreement with me, but fear the ridicule, the ostracism, the unemployment, the poverty that comes from losing one's job and titles, and therefore don't speak?

This is obviously affecting the ratio of opinions you see displayed in the public discourse.

And that's not all. Some people who speak out have been targeted with actual violence, like stalking, home invasions, and harrassment. Some have even been murdered, for speaking.

Do you think all of these factors might have an effect of tilting the public discourse toward your side of the debate, creating a false perception of consensus?

This is not difficult to understand. What happens, in science, when intimidation and censorship are thrown into the process?

What happens to science?

You used to know this. But the trauma and insanity of this plandemic project has infected you with a compulsion to pretend to no longer know.

Stop pretending. Stop acting like you don't know how this works. You do know.

"Because independent experts are informing them!" Experts also said America faced a tidal wave of Islamic terrorists, and invading Afghanistan was the only way to stop it. Experts said Saddam had WMD's and was planning to use them. Experts said the Iraq invasion would last a few months to a year. It's now going on 20 years. Those were the foremost experts in counter-terrorism. And they were wrong. "Ok but this time, it's based on science!" Science is not a group of people. It's not a social class or institution. It's a Method. "Sure. I know. So?" So how do you know the group of people and institutions that call themselves "science" are actually using the Method of science, when it comes to this topic? "Because science is part of academia, and I trust academia." And how do you know academia is beyond the reach of corruption? Considering that every other major institution in society has been corrupted by the influence of corporate oligarch money, why would academia be an exception? Why would it be the one institution immune? "I guess you have a point there. But are you saying they're lying about covid statistics? What evidence do you have for that?" See here.

26 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All