These red flags of persuasion are signals to look deeper into what is being said. Is it possible that at least one of the "conspiracy theories" might have substance? Why not just give a medical statement about the origin of the virus and let others sift through alternative theories. I have already written that I believe the foundational source is a result of deforestation, overcrowding, treatment of animals and unsanitary conditions. These, and the worldview that spawns them are the cause of most pandemics. I may hope we understand pandemics as resulting from our treatment of Nature so this can be a target for our transformational efforts to create new systems that will prevent not only them, but also climate change, extinction rates, pollution, etc. This seems more useful than starting a war against China for using germ warfare or against whomever is targeted by the made-in-the-lab theories. However, it is not wise to dismiss any theories that might be about geo-political and financial motivations that might relate to the coronavirus origin.
This includes listening carefully to what Kevin Drum says about Anthony Fauci's truthfulness in his Mother Jones piece. I calls for knowing what Bobby Kennedy, Jr. says about Fauci being a dangerous fraud. After reading what Gerald Posner wrote in the New York Times in early March, it would be worthwhile to read his book, Pharma: Greed, Lies and the Poisoning of America. The Library Journal refers to as "extensive, meticulous research, leaving no stone unturned," which is a good enough reason to at least listen to a conspiracy theory.
Fauci may be a lone voice of truth in the Trump administration, but what if he is not? I think it is important to have a "follow the money" understanding of Fauci, his connections to the vaccine industry and to the rest of the Trump administration. We should question his inconsistencies. We want to know all we can about any vaccines that may emerge. One can believe in vaccines and at the same time know they can be either dangerous in themselves or can be useful but not accessible to those who most need them. I watched Mikovits' "Plandemic" video once and have more questions than answers, but she is an expert in developing immune therapies (vaccines) and has a story to tell about Fauci I would like to study.
I confess my own uninvestigated bias for my singling out Fauci's potential untruthfulness. Simply put, it is difficult for me to conceive of anyone who still works at a position of importance in the Trump administration as being the "straight shooting" and the "beacon of truth" he is made out to be. Fauci may indeed be such a beacon somehow, however, when I check my bias, he still seems to have a questionable history as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 such as mentioned by Drum. There are also allegations about a cover up and "Ponzi scheme" in a new book about Fauci. Of the author, David Black of Rolling Stone said he deserved a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of AIDS.
Truth-seeking today is not an easy task. Few of us have the time or even the skills to uncover what is true and what is not. Yet truth is an "eternal conversation about things that matter, conducted with passion and discipline," as Parker Palmer says in his book, The Courage to Teach. If we are willing to become aware of our own preconceptions and beliefs first, we will likely intuit when something does not make sense. Such healthy skepticism coupled with open-mindedness may be enough to prevent falling for a dangerous lie. We are more likely to come to a conclusion that seems sufficiently truthful to take action or make decisions about future actions that may determine the existence of not the well-being of future generations.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
