“The Science,” Debunked.
Posted by Ed Folsom, December 8, 2024.
All that “science” we were told we had to follow… It wasn’t actually science. The U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a report on December 4, 2024 titled After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward.
It’s hard not to notice that nearly every single finding is something that, if you suggested that it might be true during the pandemic, immediately brought you under attack from a flock of Karens, scolds and other party-line enforcer-trolls armed with a bevy of prepackaged memes and talking points. And then came the warning labels on your posts, or removal (Facebook), or the freezing of your account until you removed the offending “misinformation” (Twitter). And if one spake the heresy too many times, one was simply banished from the platform – “canceled” in the parlance of the times.
Because of a congressional report released in October of 2024, which I previously wrote about here, we now know that the Government spent $900,000,000 on a media campaign that spread scientifically inaccurate information in support of Biden Administration COVID-19 policies while leaning on social media companies to ban contrary information no matter how accurate the information was.
As for the spread of misinformation during the time frame, the House report found that the “Government perpetrated COVID-19 misinformation,” specifically in that:
Public health officials incorrectly characterized the lab-leak theory [of the pandemic’s origin] as a ‘conspiracy theory,’… The Biden administration and many public health officials exaggerated the power of COVID-19 vaccines… [and] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other public health officials falsely implied that Ivermectin was only for horses and cows.
“Follow the science,” they told us. The non-deplorable, educated, and enlightened people “believe the science.” Well:
- Social distancing. Was the CDC guidance on social distancing — 6’ between you and the next person — “science”? Not according to the report, which tells us that “The six-foot social distancing requirement was not supported by science.” It turns out, according to testimony of Anthony Fauci, the 6’ social distancing rule “sort of just appeared.” Fauci also testified that he isn’t aware of any study that supports it.
The report doesn’t even bother to deal with one-way aisles in stores — COVID-19 directional sensitivity?
- “Masking up” – Was that supported by science? Not according to the report, which declares that “masks and mask mandates were ineffective at controlling the spread of COVID-19,” and that “the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relied on flawed studies to support the issuance of mask mandates.”
The report doesn’t even bother to deal with policies that required people to wear a mask while walking to or from a table in a restaurant but not when seated — COVID-19 height sensitivity?
- Lockdowns. Surely the lockdowns were supported by science — those blue state policies that we were constantly scolded were, when and where they were followed, responsible for every dip in the case counts, and when and where they were not followed, responsible for every spike. Oops. It turns out that “unscientific COVID-19 lockdowns caused more harm than good.”
The wielders of the scientific bludgeon also told us that getting vaccinated would stop us from getting COVID-19, didn’t they? And they told us that this, in turn, would prevent vaccinated people from spreading COVID-19, didn’t they? But neither of those things was true. If you tried pointing that out at the time, you know that the Government’s $900,000,000 in spending sure bought a lot of prepackaged memes and talking points for the trolls to attack with, even when the social media platform allowed a post to stand.
Speaking of that, anyone who dared to question the official “natural origins” story of the pandemic, in favor of the so-called “lab leak” theory, was in for a censorship troll attackapalooza as a crazed conspiracy theorist. But, lo and behold, the House report tells us:
Four years after the onset of the worst pandemic in 100 years, the weight of the evidence increasingly supports the lab leak hypothesis. Since the Select Subcommittee commenced its work in February 2023, more and more senior intelligence officials, politicians, science editors, and scientists increasingly have endorsed the hypothesis that COVID-19 emerged as the result of a laboratory or research related accident.
The report also tells us that the purportedly scientific paper that was used to beat down anyone who dared to speak the heresy of the lab leak theory, The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, was prompted by Dr. Anthony Fauci to “disprove” the lab leak theory. Based on statements of some of the people who wrote Proximal Origin, they apparently had two motivations:
The first possible motive to downplay the lab leak theory was an interest by those involved to defend China. This motive was expressed by numerous individuals including Dr. Farrar, Dr. Rambaut, Dr. Andersen, Dr. Fouchier. Similarly, Dr. Collins expressed concerns regarding ‘international harmony.’
The second possible motive to downplay the lab leak theory was to lessen the likelihood of increased biosafety and laboratory regulations.
The House Committee found that Proximal Origin’s conclusions, that no type of lab origin was plausible, rested on three main arguments, each of which “was flawed and rested on unsupported assumptions.”
And yet, we were beaten over the head that the lab leak theory of origin was a “conspiracy theory,” making anyone who entertained it a “conspiracy theorist.” And what could be worse than that? A lying weasel, perhaps?
As for the defending-China motive, it turns out that China wielded a lot of clout. It was very successful in spreading self-serving propaganda through the World Health Organization, with the report finding:
- “The World Health Organization failed to uphold its mission and caved to Chinese Communist Party pressure;”
- “The Chinese Communist Party violated Articles Six and Seven of the International Health Regulations with no repercussions;” and
- “The World Health Organization’s report regarding the origins of COVID-19 was incomplete, misleading, and parroted Chinese Communist Party propaganda.”
As another example of China’s influence over what could and could not be said, anyone who suggested at the time that it was a very bad idea to get so much of our drug supply from China was also in for a drubbing — RACIST! Yet, the House report points points out that:
- “The United States must reduce its reliance on other countries, particularly China, for pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.”
- “In 2018, China accounted for 95 percent of U.S. imports of ibuprofen, 91 percent imports of hydrocortisone, approximately 40 percent of penicillin, and 70 percent of acetaminophen.” And
- “The U.S.’s current dependence on China for medicine and medical supplies is a serious national security risk. This over-reliance could easily be weaponized against us. The supply chain vulnerability was not a new problem, but one that was laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
So much that was heresy turned out to be true. “The science,” it turns out, was not. Who could possibly have known?
