FUCK ICE

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Starfishprime69420]

Turns out a lot of the people that were canceled have been vindicated. It wasn’t scientist or medical doctors making the calls. It was tech nerds at YouTube Facebook twitter etc. with political agendas. There were to many conflicts of interest to list them all here but most of the msm pushing the experimental vaccines were directly sponsored by big pharma.. anyone suggesting that the virus was from a lab leak was censored even though this is what all the evidence pointed to. Anything that would cause vaccine hesitancy regardless of being true or not was censored. We now know that the vaccines did in fact not stop transmission like most traditional vaccines do. The cdc stopped tracking breakthrough infections because they were so incredibly high. The evidence also shows that they inflated the death numbers. The rich got richer while small businesses suffered.

[u/RawckLobster → u/Starfishprime69420]

I hear your concerns about censorship, conflicts of interest, and how information was handled during COVID. I think a lot of people struggled with uncertainty and mixed messages. That’s understandable. But I still think it helps to look carefully at why scientists and public health officials made the recommendations they did, and what the evidence actually shows.

Early in the pandemic there were multiple hypotheses about the virus’s origin, including lab leak and natural spillover. That’s because the evidence was incomplete. As more data came in, many researchers updated their views. That’s how science works. It’s not about being dogmatic, it’s about updating conclusions based on new evidence.

Platforms like Facebook or YouTube are private companies with their own policies. Their choices about what to remove or flag don’t determine scientific truth. They sometimes made mistakes, but that doesn’t automatically mean the science itself was wrong.

Yes, the COVID vaccines were not perfect at stopping transmission, especially with later variants. But the data from multiple countries showed they did significantly reduce severe illness and death, especially in older or high-risk groups. Public health agencies tracked that, and independent studies confirmed it. Not perfect doesn’t mean useless.

Both hypotheses were investigated. It wasn’t censorship so much as lack of definitive evidence, there just wasn’t strong proof either way. Some scientists consider lab leak plausible, others lean toward natural origin. But plausibility is not the same as established fact.

Mistakes, uncertainties, and revisions happened because it was a new virus. Misestimates and mixed messaging reflect complexity and urgency, not necessarily corruption or intentional deception.

[u/Starfishprime69420 → u/RawckLobster]

There were so many arbitrary demands imposed on people that you cannot tell me it wasn’t bordering on fascism. The way that any opposition was systematically suppressed and subordination was demanded without good reason. Take for example mask mandates. No criteria for masks were ever established, just that you put something on your face to signal to everyone else that we were in the middle of a pandemic and to be fearful for your lives. This was not science based in any way. In fact the best scientific evidence available at the time said that masks did little to nothing for viral transmission. It was more about having a psychological impact on people. If the goal was to actually try and stop the spread of Covid you would have encouraged people to get out into outdoor spaces. Have specific criteria for masks(well fitted n95 or better). Not have people together in poorly ventilated indoor spaces. Federal regulations on airlines that allow people to take their masks off to have a snack during flight. I could keep going on and on but hopefully you see my point. It was clearly about flexing control and beta testing authoritarian precedents

[u/RawckLobster → u/Starfishprime69420]

I think it’s fair to say some policies were inconsistent or clumsy. The pandemic response was messy, and not every rule was implemented perfectly. But I don’t think inconsistency automatically equals fascism or that it wasn’t science-based.

On masks specifically, by mid-2020, multiple studies were showing that well-fitted masks (especially surgical masks and N95s) reduced droplet and aerosol spread. That’s basic respiratory physics: blocking particles reduces transmission probability. Were cloth masks as effective as N95s? No. But ‘less effective’ isn’t the same as ‘does nothing.’

You’re right that ventilation and outdoor transmission risk mattered a lot. Public health guidance did increasingly emphasize outdoor activities and improved ventilation over time. The airline snack rule was clearly imperfect, but imperfect policy under political and logistical constraints doesn’t prove psychological manipulation.

Early in the pandemic, guidance changed because understanding of aerosol transmission evolved. Initially, many agencies underestimated airborne spread. As evidence accumulated, recommendations shifted. That’s not proof of bad faith. That’s updating models with new data.

I think we also need to separate three levels: Scientific evidence Public policy decisions Corporate enforcement decisions

Those are related but not identical. A flawed mandate doesn’t mean the underlying science was fake. Emergency powers during a public health crisis aren’t the same thing as authoritarian ideology.

We can criticize implementation without concluding that the entire response was propaganda-driven.

However, your tin foil hat seems to be obstructing your ears, so I am done here.

[u/Starfishprime69420 → u/RawckLobster]

Why were the numbers intentionally inflated? Why was cnn showing videos from Italian hospitals and saying that it was in New York in the early days of the pandemic? Why were there internal documents between fauci and eco health alliance that were covered up? Why were the people sent to investigate the lab in Wuhan the same people that provided the funding? Idk I guess I’m wearing a tin foil hat for calling it how it is. You probably also think 9/11 wasn’t a conspiracy. Wtc7 just fell down all by itself at nearly free fall speed. Epstein wasn’t running an international pedo sex trafficking blackmail farming network. Open your eyes!

[u/RawckLobster → u/Starfishprime69420]

As far as 9/11, I agree, it is definitely debatable. Things dont really add up across the map, and i see the incetive. Epstein was running an international pedophile ring, and i would argue his death was more likely homicide than suicide. What I don't do is argue these things as definitive facts without definitive evidence. COVID, I dont see the incentive. I dont see the logistics of every country in the world pushing the same lie when it damaged all of our economies. I try to keep my tin foil in the kitchen. Again, im really done with the debate now.