In my previous blog post, I covered in detail that logic is the best way to approach any issue, including and especially matters that are being relegated to a presumed “expert class.” This time around, I will demonstrate how this applies to the response to COVID.

Nothing I will address here is disputed or controversial, but reasoning through these questions is what caused me to reject the entire COVID narrative in toto. Since Christ would routinely challenge the assumptions of his critics and enemies in addition to the motives and faulty logic of presumed friendlies, it certainly recommends this approach as a path to establishing what is true. If the responses to sincere questions points a certain direction, that helps us to overcome bias and propaganda by following the breadcrumbs to conclusions consistent with reality. The benefits of posing questions as a way to discern reality from fiction is that it is less easily manipulated.

Questions prevent common shortcomings that plague many argument-based approaches. For example, it sidesteps or exposes the following fallacies and propensities:

• Ad hominem fallacy (attacking the person rather than the argument)
• “No true Scotsman” fallacy (insisting that all people under a certain category behave and/or think the same)
• Assuming causation based on tenuous evidence (comparing apples to newspapers because both have a connection to pulp)
• Manipulation of language and context
• Making unfounded generalizations
• Creating a false dichotomy that eliminates other reasonable alternatives
• Appeals to authority or popular opinion
• Using strawman arguments (misrepresenting the position of one or both sides in order to simply knock them down)

Keep in mind that my position is that a review of the facts clearly indicates that the objective behind the entire response to COVID was control, not public health.

All that is needed to defeat the reliability of the questioner is to prove that they are acting in bad faith and simply presenting loaded questions intended to have the hearer reach a preordained conclusion. While this is an understandable conclusion, I challenge all readers to point out how a question is unfair or reasonable options that I’ve excluded. You may also dispute the reliability of my sources of information. I welcome anyone who wishes to subject my quiz to such a critique. Note that “fact checkers” are not a reliable source since this is simply deferring to the “experts.”

Here we go:

CONTEXT:

From the outset, the letter health agencies, Fauci, and all other advocates for the mandates did not publicly recommend any early treatments. Many doctors in America, Canada, and other parts of the world were identifying great success with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine along with zinc, vitamin C and vitamin D. Countries like India opted for widespread distribution of packets containing the above ingredients (with a total cost of less than $10 each) to citizens in lieu of mass injections. Notably, in Uttar Pradesh, they have long ago declared that COVID is essentially eradicated. The health “experts” have not denied the data, but have attempted to insist that the success was not related to the drugs provided.

QUESTIONS:

• Since these appointed experts have insisted that there is not enough evidence that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine protocols work, would it have been prudent for them to validate the claims of US doctors and citizens in Uttar Pradesh to find out if these measures were effective if their intent was motivated by public health? Yes/no – if no, why not? ___________________
• Why did they stall well after COVID arrived to determine early protocols rather than ignoring ones deemed effective by many doctors? _________________
• Why have the health agencies not addressed the fact that Vitamin D deficiency and having several comorbidities are the leading indicators of serious injury or death from COVID; and why close gyms and lock people down while withholding these facts when their true purpose was saving lives? __________________
• Since a whistleblower at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) offered proof that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were effective treatments for COVID in the spring of 2020 (roughly 8 months before the injections), why was this not shared by the health agencies and, if they were simply ignorant of this fact, why didn’t DARPA contact them to make them aware of these safe and effective drugs? ________________
• What reason was there for an FDA rep to insist Ivermectin was “very dangerous,” “highly toxic,” caused “hospitalizations,” “seizures”, “comas and even death” when they certified it for use in 1996, it is on the list of the WHO’s essential medications, the inventor won the Nobel Prize in 2015, it had effectively treated huge numbers of people with over 4 billion doses having been given out, and was known to be even safer than Tylenol based on deaths and adverse reactions? __________________
• Did the FDA call Ivermectin a “horse de-wormer” because they don’t know it was created for human use and later adapted for horses because they are ignorant of the fact and, if so, how could they be deemed qualified for giving any health-related advice? ____________
• If they knew, what is the innocent explanation for this vilification and, for that matter, why did all the other health “experts” not denounce the FDA representative for this false attribution? _____________________
• What is the plausible innocent explanation for a literal full court press to keep doctors from prescribing Ivermectin and blocking its distribution and usage to the point where doctors were threatened or fired over it, hospitals went to court to deny access, and Canadians (like me) had their shipment stopped at the border if their only claim is that it is not proven to work? What happened to our right to try? ___________________
• Since federal health “experts” crowed about poisonings from people taking the animal version of Ivermectin, weren’t they causing this situation by denying people access to the genuine article and how could they be ignorant of that fact? _________________
• As they admit there was a huge spike in Ivermectin use of all kinds (including the unsafe and far less effective animal compound they pushed people to use out of desperation), why were there no deaths attributed to anyone who took Ivermectin (which they decidedly kept from people), but the Emergency Use only authorized brand-new experimental gene therapies (linked to a massively growing body count and vast numbers of severe adverse events) were promoted heavily for everyone’s use? _____________
• How likely is it that their irrational efforts to keep the treatments known to be safe and effective were quashed based on the fact that if there were safe and effective options, the Emergency Use Authorization and forcible jabbing would not have been allowed – and what might this mean? _________________
• What is the innocent explanation for the fact that Dr. Pierre Kory verified that by October 7, 2021, 100 to 200 members of the U.S. Congress had received the Ivermectin treatment kept from citizens? Does the “horse de-wormer” only work on politicians? _________________

QUESTION:

     You can tell who the most informed people are because they: (Circle the best answer)

• Listen obediently and fully trust in all bureaucrats approved by the government in power.
• Only trust the government that’s in power holds the same worldview as they do.
• Weigh the content provided by those in authority, other experts that contradict the narrative, and apply logic as well and seek out evidence in support or contrary to the claims being made.

QUESTION:

Several doctors, nurses, scientists, coroners, and other experts and pundits have been censored, threatened with (or lost) their jobs and licenses for making claims counter to the narrative. The best explanation for this is: (Circle the best answer)

• They are incompetent and could not possibly have an opinion that is at odds with the state-approved experts, so this step was necessary to protect society from such profound levels of ignorance.
• They are masochistic and enjoy the harassment and marginalization that comes from speaking out against the presumed facts.
• They deserve a hearing because, unless it is one person making provably irrational claims, they have no reason to subject themselves to such persecution unless they see it as their duty to alert others to the dangers they see – as their professions and consciences naturally call them to do.

QUESTION:

We know that huge numbers of doctors, professionals and pseudo-experts fully endorsed and participated in the overarching claims from the expert class. Consequently, we can be sure that: (Circle the best answers)

• They were fully aware that the decisions around mandates and the protocols were sound.
• No one would ever participate in wrongdoing simply due to social pressure and professional threats as this has never before happened in history.
• Citizens of progressive nations would never be complicit in such evil where lives are at stake because we are too enlightened to fall for such nonsense.
• While threats against one’s professional license and livelihood might cause some to cave, most would be stalwart like the church who defiantly and collectively stood against pressure to close their doors for far less (the threat of fines).
• Situations like the Milgram experiment, the Asch social conformity test , and mass formation can explain how people can be pressured to do wrong – as can threats, bribes, and/or possible blackmail.
• The Bible is right and our natural tendency is to engage in evil as a default – especially when the cost of opposing malign forces is strong and costly.

QUESTION:

The Canadian government ordered that small businesses, gyms, parks, churches and various social events not be allowed while abortion clinics, large box stores, liquor, and cannabis stores were permitted to stay open. The rationale for this is: (Circle all that apply)

• The institutions given the green light are known to be characteristically pristine and sanitary while small businesses and churches draw unwashed masses.
• The services on the approved list are uniquely vital to the community and the others are disposable.
• The organizations that remained open are particularly qualified to ensure that mandates are followed to a T while the others cannot be trusted with such a responsibility.
• The goal was to create greater dependence on the government so as to enrich and empower the wealthy – and values and qualities of the places that were closed just so happen to run counter to those of the establishments that were not allowed to remain open.
• The objective was to socially isolate people so that they would be less likely to talk among themselves, discuss how irrational many measures were, and maybe stop seeing one another as disease carriers to be feared.

BONUS SHORT ANSWER QUESTION:

The reason that box stores blocked off what were deemed to be non-essential was necessary as a health and safety measure because _________________:

Please also include the standard applied to determine essential and non-essential purchases, institutions, and people and why government is the best qualified for making this determination.

CONTEXT:

We have an extremely wealthy man with a background in computers, bearing the unlikely handle of Bill Gates. He has routinely advocated for population control to reduce carbon emissions and his “charitable” work involves the creation of global vaccines to go to the entire world population. He specifically stated in a Ted Talk that: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by 10 or 15 percent.” Incidentally, he has also bought up vast amounts of farmland throughout America and has called for the elimination of all meat; to be replaced with plant-based alternatives. In completely unrelated news, efforts are already underway to grow vaccinated plants – notably in Canada.

Should we:

QUESTIONS:

• Put this man in charge of a global injection program of an experimental gene altering therapy or socially distance him from all of civil society?
• Trust that his venture into farmland acquisition is to ensure we have all the uncontaminated meat and plants we could ever desire or relocate him to the Funny Farm to avoid potential mass starvation?

CONTEXT;

The government that is fully committed to everyone receiving the injections and willing to impose any bribe, financial, legal, and social pressure they can towards that end has deemed that the right method to instill confidence in their plan is to censor all content that could cause “vaccine hesitancy.” The most logical rationale is to:

• Maximize efforts to reassure anyone who is hesitant based on the sure knowledge that the only possible reason anyone might be opposed to their mandated experimental jab is baseless online fearmongering and risky “fake news?”
• Deceptively unperson anyone with negative facts about the dangers associated with the inoculations and hide all the “vaccine” injured because this would impede their attempt to gain full compliance – to find potential motivations, see Bill Gates questions and look up “Agenda 21,” “Agenda 2030,” “The Great Reset,” “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” and “The Communist Manifesto.”
• BONUS QUESTION: If you seek to censor any content that might cause “vaccine hesitancy,” does that suggest that there is no cause for concern or there is plenty to be troubled about that they don’t want you to see? In other words, does absence of allowable evidence mean evidence of absence?

QUESTION:

We are told that the vast majority of people in Canada have taken the injection based on the government claims of roughly 90% compliance. What does this tell us? (Circle all that apply):

• We know this is true because statistics and governments don’t lie.
• It must be so since they have made such a compelling public case with plenty of data and responses to all challenges to the safety and efficacy record.
• The “compliance” is due to pressure, coercion, threats, inducements, promises that things would open up, hiding dangers, censoring those who have been injured, and/or other privileges or rights uniquely denied to the unjabbed.

FUN FACT: There are reported to be no homosexuals in Iran and the number of converts to Islam are high and there is a dearth of defections that have absolutely nothing to do with their “convert or die” messaging. The leader of Iran assures us this is simply a matter of personal choice.

 

CONTEXT:

Imagine that the government mandated solely that a specific demographic (blacks, women, aboriginals, homosexuals, transgendered, for example) needed to wear masks in public, have their businesses closed down, remain at home for extended periods of time, keep social distance from the rest of society, not be permitted to travel, and be threatened with job loss if they didn’t take an experimental injection as often as it is imposed and/or with the mandate to undergo ongoing testing. Similarly, they withhold any early treatments uniquely to this population because government approved “experts” claim they don’t know if it will be effective. Those who end up in hospital are directed into a mandatory regimen solely consisting of a specific drug highly associated with renal failure and use of a ventilator where the prospect of survival is roughly 10%. The rationale given is that the state is particularly concerned about their safety more than the rest of the public and, it’s “for your protection, comrade.” Add to this that there is no evidence that the measures help, that suicide, substance abuse and mental health rates skyrocket in this community, and that those who claim to have been harmed by the injections are censored or mocked because it endangers the health of the rest of that community. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the measures have any appreciable advantage for those on whom the measures imposed.

QUESTIONS:

• Should we assume their motive are noble since we know the mandates are necessary and they would never impose any procedure in violation of what have heretofore been known as basic rights, freedoms, and bodily autonomy?
• Would this decision be suspect as it smacks of tyranny directed against a vulnerable segment of society – possibly even democide?
• Might this be considered a violation of the rights and freedoms of the members of this segment of society?
• If you were a member of this demographic, would you feel gratitude for their thoughtful and compassionate response?
• If you fell outside of this sector, would you request the right to be bound by these same obligations?
• How likely is it that you would demand that everyone have the same expectation placed on all citizens – including your friends, family and close relatives?
• If a specific country on its own adopted this level of moxie in imposing such policies on its population under these rationales, would you assume their actions were guided by compassion or malevolence?
• Does any of the above change by virtue of the fact that these draconian efforts are being used by most governments throughout the globe? Does this legitimize their claims that it is essential for the public good?

That’s it for now. You have 2 hours to complete the quiz as I know that engaging in such mental gymnastics can be taxing and may require more time. The answers can be given in the space below. No profanity, please.