Updated: Feb 23, 2021
When Labour MP Tanya Plibersek confronted Liberal MP Craig Kelly in the halls of Parliament this week, it was the perfect example of how the divergent opinions surrounding COVID-19 are playing out. On one side you have Ms Plibersek's politically correct self-righteousness, name-calling, the cognitive dissonance of her ability to assimilate conflicting information, fearmongering and, of course politicising; and on the other, well you have Mr Kelly's science and common-sense.
The COVID-19 storyline has been playing out like this for a year now. So, the question is: Can we build a bridge between the two opposing views, and if so, what will that bridge look like?
To answer this question we must first look at the two main sides of the debate. Then, we must look at the facts to draw our own conclusions.
When the federal government ropes in 140 "experts" who it thinks are undermining public confidence in their vaccine policies, with the purpose of bringing them across to its way of thinking, one must ask the question: What are the "experts" for then, if not to provide their expert input, whether it fits your model or not? And isn't this behaviour akin to propaganda exercises we expect to see from a totalitarian dictatorship? Surely not from a democracy?
When the state tells scientists: You must follow our directives or you will be shown to be undermining public health, that behaviour is attempting to dictate public health policy through coercion, using the advice of members of the two most trusted professions in Australia (Ipsos Global Trust survey 2019 – doctors 69%, scientists 62%) as the reassuring voice. That is not science.
When the state gets in between doctors and their patients with its policies, isn't that also the action of a dictatorship? And if mandating its healthcare workers to take the flu shot is not dictating, then what is it?
The government is therefore saying: "Citizens! To protect your well-being, we must dictate how you manage your health and the health of your family, using restrictions. The only way to move beyond those restrictions is to submit to universal vaccinations, for the good of us all."
They have based this on the advice of the “experts” they enlisted as chief advisors, who themselves have been “advised” what to say by a dictatorial government.
True to the nature of science, not all "experts" agree all the time, so the waters can be muddied easily, and deliberately.
The key points in contention are:
How the RT-PCR tests are being calibrated for use, and the implications this has on its reliability. These tests are used as the basis for dictating everything - lockdowns, testing, distancing, masking, travel, the lot - so are a primary point to debate.
Questions many experts have around the isolation of the virus.
Peer-reviewed, published studies showing existing, cheap and safe pharmaceutical and natural products, which have shown to be effective treatments, especially with early diagnosis.
Peer-reviewed, published scientific studies which show that lockdowns do not work.
Proper comparative analysis between nations that chose not to lock down its citizens, and nations that did, providing support for the peer-reviewed studies, which come to the same conclusion: Lockdowns do not work.
The speed with which these vaccines have been created, when vaccines are normally held to a higher standard because they are administered to healthy people. As it has not even been a year to develop and test, and some pharmaceutical companies are using completely new and untested technology, the long-term human trials simply do not exist for them to truly lay claim to their safety and efficacy.
The fact that the vaccines will not stop transmission, which is why the lockdowns were enforced in the first place.
So, what should happen when the experts don’t agree? How do we build that bridge for the common good?
There should be open and free debate where all parties can bring their findings to the table and hash it out. It is through this sort of cooperation that true progress and breakthroughs can occur. Yet what is transpiring is that dissenters from the government's policies are systematically discredited, demonised and crucified by the state's mouthpiece, mainstream media. And when that fails, they are vilified by Big Tech-funded / Big Pharma-funded fact-checkers, de-platformed from social media, and essentially censored with mainstream media attention being the loudest, and only voice, disparaging and belittling any opposing opinions and scientific proofs, offered by very distinguished doctors and scientists on the world stage.
Is this how science is supposed to be?
Is the public health threat so severe that people are dying in the streets, which might indeed demand such harsh restrictions? The answer to both these questions is decisively NO. So why is it occurring?
The answer could lie in who benefits the most.
When the virus survival rate is above 99%, making the risk significantly low, how does the greater population benefit from lockdown restrictions? It certainly benefits a state that wants to control its citizens, and it also benefits Big Pharma, because many will take their vaccines simply to get out of lockdown. However, we are now told that even with the vaccine, we will still have restrictions.
When there are scientific, peer-reviewed and published studies that show lockdowns have not had a positive impact, and that existing safe and cheap treatments are available, but both are denied, does that benefit us? NO. It benefits Big Pharma, because curing illness is not what made them the largest industry on the planet.
When the vaccines are rolled out and the adverse effects are worse than the virus, and cannot stop its transmission in any case, who benefits? Big Pharma does, because once you subscribe to its vaccines, you are expected to get the booster, predicted to be administered annually, similar to the flu vaccine. That scenario equates to clients for life, and big profits for Big Pharma and presumably its supporters in government. And if you’re injured from the vaccine, the manufacturers are exempt from any liability, so whose products are prescribed to treat those injuries? Those who injured you in the first place.
Let’s not forget that in order to know you have COVID-19, you must be tested, as most people don’t have symptoms. Therefore the "cases" are overwhelmingly healthy people.
How is this even happening? Could it be possible that our government has been infiltrated by bureaucrats, planted by the medical-industrial complex, including Big Pharma, and their placement is to ensure their money-making agenda is successful? When Chief Health Officers are given carte blanche designing these restrictive lockdowns, who can blame you for asking?
So, a question to Tanya Plibersek, or Miss Information, as she purports to be: What is your agenda and who do you truly work for? Are you so naïve that "you cannot see the wood for the trees", because it is you yourself peddling misinformation that "the science is settled?"
If we truly lived in a democracy, you would be setting up a public debate with Craig Kelly and "experts" on both sides to hash it out, in the public interest. But instead you choose to resort to bullying tactics, name-calling, fearmongering and politicising.
This COVID-19 pandemic has affected us all, whether we got the virus or not. So how dare you try to shut down discussion like this? Perhaps your mother would be interested in having more information, so she can assess it critically, as we all need to do. People are not dying in the streets, and that is not the result of the restrictions. How dare you belittle and dismiss the importance of having these debates with your patronising contempt.
Craig Kelly is representing his constituents. Who are you representing?
I dare you, Miss Information, to organise a public debate on this issue. It's probably the most important debate we need to have today. Be democratic and scientific about it, not personal and political.
This is how you build that bridge to bring these opposing views into the public arena, and if you were truly interested in doing what was right for the greater good, rather than treating Australians like idiots who cannot think for themselves, you would accept the challenge.
C'mon Tanya - I dare ya!