How the Liberals Suppress Science for Political Gain
Updated: Feb 27, 2022
Kathleen Wells - There is a colloquialism that if you repeat something loud enough and long enough, people will believe it, whether true or not which is an adaption of Alinsky’s rule, “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side (Alinsky, 1971, p. 129).” The ancillary is true as well. If you suppress the truth then the alternatives look more convincing.
The COVID-19 event is loaded with examples of this behavior by the Liberals. As the Coronavirus event progressed there was a pivotal point when legacy media and social media would not let Americans discuss therapeutics for this flu-like virus that has gripped the world for almost two full years. At one point, President Trump mentioned therapeutics, however, those on the left immediately seized on it and mischaracterized what he expressed.
In the American way of life, we have the public sphere where our Forefathers believe in the free flow of information and the common person can discuss topics of nobility, which could not be discussed when a monarchy reigned over them. They formalized this as a human right and the freedom of speech. When making decisions one should be afforded the opportunity to discuss and receive all the information. Especially when making medical decisions. Informed consent means knowing all the risks, benefits, and having access to all the information.
My talk show is in the public sphere and a place where together, we discuss the issues. My lines are open and anyone is welcome to call in to join the conversation. With all the inconsistencies coming out of Dr. Fauci’s mouth regarding mask-wearing or not and lockdowns or not, I am compelled to conduct research on this virus to promote the dialogue so that my listeners can become informed and make better choices for themselves.
However, there is a problem having a discussion in the public sphere which belongs to the public. I was the target of their attempts to control the conversation. Initially, I started my research on the 2020 Election by watching videos downloaded on YouTube. I listen to almost everything that was of interest to me. Soon I realized that the 2020 election was a fraud and my YouTube channel began to ban a few of my videos before banning me until November. But the problem is more widespread.
Governmental Authority and Followers
Liberals are ardent believers not only in BIG Government but the government as the final authority and that’s the problem. For example, when the Center for Disease Control (CDC) makes a recommendation or attestation, the liberal constituency of mostly Democrats accepts their edict as an incontestable truth. This is where the rubber meets the road between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives believe in small government and supreme power as the final authority. Thus, any assertions by humans and human government must be examined in the public sphere.
The struggle is who has the final authority and what is the truth. The Government asserts itself as the final authority and arbiter of truth then attempts to control the conversation. Legacy media, social media and big tech are working in collaboration with Government. Dr. Shiva’s presentation at Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium discusses that the Founders never intended this sort of collaboration as the modus operandi for the United States Republic. There are many examples of this conduct.
Not long after President Trump had recommended a few therapeutics to treat Covid, a handful of doctors, held a press conference in DC discussing their success in treating Covid patients with their therapeutic protocols outside the government’s agenda. Dr. Stella Immanuel was quite persuasive with her therapy. The liberal media, the Government's Watchdog, and their followers discredited her to no end.
In my research, I stumbled upon Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, whose interview was downloaded to the Bitchute platform. Dr. Bhakdi is an American-born microbiologist, who is the Former Chair of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at Giessen University, Former Post-Doctoral Researcher at Planck Institute of Immunobiology, and Epigenetics, and co-author of the book Corona False Alarm. Once I listened to several of Dr. Bhakdi’s interviews, I continued my research and found Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. These experts were very impressive and began to build a consensus counter to the Governmental authorities' message.
The bottom line up front: SARS-Cov-2 is not a new virus and the PCR test, which is used to ascertain whether someone is positive for the virus, is not conclusive at all and the PCR use needs to be reconsidered. Italy has reconsidered downgrading their SARS-Covid-2 cases to around 4,000. Italy was the first country that sent everyone into a tizzy because their cases and death rates were so high. In the end, all those cases were false positives. The governments used a flawed practice as opposed to a common method of doctors to never use a lab test to make a diagnosis. Doctors always use lab tests in adjunction with a patient showing symptoms in their office to a diagnose. Even Kary
Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test and who has passed away, remarked that the PCR test is dangerous because it is so sensitive that it produces false positives. The video of Mullis making this statement is still available on YouTube. If the use of the PCR test is not stopped, we will never get out of this COVID charade.
The vaccination for COVID is not a vaccination at all. Instead, the material in the shot is actually gene therapy that modifies a person’s genome. Who knows what the effects of modifying the genome will do. Studies show that the majority of people refusing the jab are Ph.D.’s then medical staff because they know the dangers of what this material will do.
Governmental Control
Both the discussions surrounding the 2020 election fraud and discussions surrounding Covid-19 are heavily monitored and controlled by Legacy media and social media. The issue is not really about the COVID fraud, if the election was a fraud, or if any of these issues pushed by the Liberals are true. They are symptoms of a greater issue. The real problem is the drive for power and control by Liberals. A Government-mandated test must not be used to determine if someone can maintain employment, enter a restaurant or auditorium. The conversation must be allowed to freely flow. Controlling the conversation only means the conversation will continue to the detriment and exclusion of Liberals. We are observing this as the Conservatives begin to build their own networks increasing the division in America.
Liberals are seeking to gain political control and power through a variety of venues. Our Forefathers understood all humans to be fundamentally corrupt and designed a government to dilute the corruption. We seem to have reached a point where corruption has overwhelmed the governmental design. Corrective action has to come from outside the framework of Government. The only power government has is the power people permit it to have. Civil disobedience is a peaceful form of speech and protest. The people simply refuse to cooperate with mandates that the government is imposing on people.
What has President Biden’s mandate done: create a new liberty movement?
References:
Alinksy, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: a practical primer for realistic radicals. Random House: New York