“The video you just sent to me was taken down by YouTube. Somebody is watching, and they are not your friend.” This is a message I received recently from a good friend who is a critical care doctor. And this is not the first time this message, or ones like it, have been sent from him.
The video this doctor is referencing was part of a new documentary called “Plandemic” which, in part, details some of the work and research of Dr. Judy Mikovits, author of the new book Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science.
The “Plandemic” documentary was removed rather quickly from YouTube but seems to have found a second life on other internet outlets. While the documentary has certainly received praise, it has also generated a substantial amount of valid criticism. Since the claims made in the documentary are now in the open and broadly public, it is crucial that the arguments presented be put to the test of scientific, medical, and philosophic rigor.
One need not fully agree with the arguments presented by Dr. Mikovits, nor even the central principles that are explicated in the documentary itself. Robust counter claims can certainly be made, and they ought to be—so long as the assumed aim of the positions put forth is the attainment of truth. And this is the precise point that should trouble us. The positions being put forth by such individuals is not allowed to be heard or grappled with; nuance is forbidden. Instead, it must be vanquished from the colosseum of public opinion as quickly as possible. To even consider the possibility of calling into question the prevailing narrative regarding COVID-19 must bring about the strongest condemnation of anathema sit. Among other reasons, this is why the documentary will be highly viewed and sought after, and further highlights the rapid rate at which Dr. Mikovitz book has become an overnight best-seller.
These observations about the “Plandemic” documentary and the question of truth should be seen in proper context, as the attempt to censor the documentary’s content reveals a dark and real trend. The first time I sent something to my physician friend that eventually went MIA was an essay by Aaron Ginn, a Silicon Valley tech worker. Ginn penned an essay that was initially published at the website Medium. The central thesis of Ginn’s March 20th essay, titled “Evidence Over Hysteria-COVID 19”, was that—based upon the most reliable data gathered at that time—it seemed reasonable to hold that COVID-19 had a significantly lower infection mortality rate than originally projected. Not long after it was published, Ginn’s essay was taken down. Not only was the essay removed, but whenever one attempted to access it via Twitter, a “content warning” signal appeared. Those pulling the strings of the social media conglomerate wanted readers to turn back; a particular orthodoxy was under threat.
Or take the case of Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi. The doctors posted a video on YouTube giving their specific medical insights on COVID-19, expressing particular concern that societal lockdowns would undermine our greatest weapon again the virus: the human immune system. They argued that the almost salvific narrative surrounding a COVID-19 vaccine seemed to overlook the elephant in the room, which is that a vaccine is simply an artificial form of herd immunity. The doctors were certainly concerned about those who are most vulnerable, and that the proper prudential precautions need to be followed and carried out.
However, the expressed concern, according to their initial video post, entailed highlighting a rather overwhelming fear apparently crippling our ability to reason well through the actual given data of the virus. Their YouTube video was swiftly and harshly attacked, echoing almost verbatim the same sort of accusations thrown against Ginn. One indicative example of the attack came from the joint statement of the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine, which made the following conclusion concerning the video’s content: “… it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”
The continual referencing of “bias” and “non-peer reviewed” data must be, once again, viewed in the context of the present moment. To better see some of what is undergirding the predominant narrative surrounding the virus, it is worth briefly considering the work done by Dr. John Ioannidis, C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention and Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health at Stanford University. Dr. Ioannidis’ own meta-research has sought to explicate the way a rather large portion of the prevalent “discoveries” in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals is, to put it bluntly, rather useless. This uselessness is certainly not meant to be a negation of the natural inclination of researchers to grow in scientific knowledge. What Ioannidis has pinned down is the overwhelming bias laced through so many medical research publications. The very questions being posed, the way studies are conditioned, and the methods of data analysis being employed are just some of the notable ways in which bias so often remains.
For Ioannidis, scientific and medical research must be more firmly rooted in an act of humility, acknowledging that conclusions can be wrong, and that scientists do not need to be portrayed as a class of infallible sages. In a kind of strange irony, Dr. Ioannidis’ own work has acutely demonstrated the fact that the reasonableness of scientific inquiry—and the type of wisdom we seek to attain through it—can turn out to be quite unreasonable.
What is striking about the given examples above (and there are many more) is the disturbing degree of censoring and surveillance involved. But perhaps even more unsettling is that these instances are indicative of a deeper disorder within our present democratic ethos. In his book The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, the Polish philosopher and statesman Ryszard Legutko argued for what appears to be a rather strange convergence between some of the principles of communism and modern liberal democratic regimes. [Editor’s note: See CWR’s February 2017 review of the book.] According to Legutko,
Communism and liberal democracy proved to be all-unifying entities compelling their followers how to think, what to do, how to evaluate events, what to dream, and what language to use. They both had their orthodoxies and their models of an ideal citizen.
Legutko diagnoses the perennial temptation of our modern political regimes, which are similar to (while distinct from) communism before them: that of liberal democracy trans-mutating into a large, mechanizing system oriented towards uniformity of thought and practice. Freedom of thought and speech are goods that are not self-referential; they are ordained towards thinking and acting in accord with what is true. What we are witnessing in this time of pandemic is the opportunity for citizens to reconsider our standards and paradigms of not only how we come to know but, more importantly, the very foundations for judging what is claimed to fall under the mantle of true.
Plato, in a striking remark in The Republic, contends that the democratic soul “wouldn’t be at a loss for patterns” (557e). For Plato, the multiplicity of patterns rooted in our various desires and choices makes the democratic soul struggle to see the pattern of truth that is the very ground of his striving for knowledge. Perhaps what American citizens need to recover in the present moment is the primary fact that truth is not something that we create. Rather, truth belongs to an order outside of our own willing and making that we can, ultimately, choose to discover. As Americans begin to work to return to some level of normalcy, we must certainly be prudent in guarding against the true dangers of the actual virus itself. But it will be just as necessary, if not more so in the long run, that we also strive to habituate ourselves against those forms of democratic thinking that eventually collapse into solipsism, wherein truth merely becomes the echoing of an individual or collective will.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
A good presentation on the Demon of democracy and religious freedom. Add to this if I may the insidious demon of anti Catholicism apparently coming to fore in certain worldwide government policies. Freedom of Religion is a God given right as well as a required State protected right. The opposite has occurred in Am and elsewhere. That danger to religious liberty was correctly addressed in the recent letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano supported by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and others. France’s supreme court overruled Govt policy to suppress Church activity while allowing similar group function for others. That standard must be adopted by the Church at large and led by the Vatican. Bishops have their own particular profile, and should be free to make their own decision when and how, within reasonable State guidelines as noted by Brian Jones. Cardinal Muller believes there is an anti Catholic global trend, the UN among them to debilitate even neutralize Catholicism primarily because of its avocation of the right to life of the unborn. We add to that opposition to homosexual relationships. If our pontificate finds it more suitable to instead focus on ecology by celebrating Laudato Si during this crisis, it must be proclaimed we represent Christ first, not ecology. Cardinals and bishops have the inherent authority and obligation as defenders of the faith to be proactive in this most just cause of religious freedom, and the safeguard of essential moral doctrine.
Brilliant!! Thank you, Father Morello! Your words are worth repeating (copy and paste): “If our pontificate finds it more suitable to instead focus on ecology by celebrating Laudato Si during this crisis, it must be proclaimed we represent Christ first, not ecology”. The DARK AND BLINDING ECOLOGY of Democracy and Communism come together as one, as the article explains so well, and that’s why they have to SHAME-DISTRACT-AND-REPLACE Truth in us by putting humongous guilt trips on us to obsess about Natural Ecology but never ever pay any attention to their Anti-Freedom, Anti-Truth, Anti-Catholic Demonic Ecology that they are intoxicating and killing all Creation with.
That’s why they have to suppress the Light of Truth (Matthew 5:15). When the Light of Jesus gets turned on the creepy-crawlers scatter and flee, when it gets turned off the creepy-crawlers gain power, high prestige and influence (democracy, communism, religious compromisers). We are being fed poisoned milk to keep us collectvely and sentimentally blind and stupid.
There’s no greater collectivist and zombiefying force than blind, fanatical sentimentality, which is the poisoned, permanently infantilizing milk that makes us allergic and hateful against Authentic Truth. That’s what Saint Paul explains here: “I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready, FOR YOU ARE STILL WORLDLY, (1 Corinthians 3:2-3).
Sentimentality leads straight to worldliness. Satan is the Sentimentalist, NOT EVER JESUS! Satan’s ultra-soft “love” leads to sin and Hell. Only JESUS’ Tough Love leads to Joy and Heaven. It’s our sacred duty to spread JESUS’ Light far and wide, as is available to do for each of us individually, and to BE Light for anyone around us, using words and actions when the Holy Spirit prompts us, to the Glory of God!
All Catholics need to atone for the sin of missing public Masses.
“… it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”
**********
I have no idea whether they were attempting to advance their personal financial interests & as physicians, you’d hope they had a high regard for public health. It doesn’t seem very decent to assume the worst intentions. But there’s a good reason for peer reviewed data. I’m no statistician but even to me the way they used data to arrive at their conclusions seemed incorrect.
I questioned their YouTube video content but I don’t think it should have been taken down. What did that solve? It seems like it would have been better to engage those doctors in a video discussion with experts who could help determine whether the data/math & conclusions were accurate- or not.
mrscracker, no interest was put on SERIOUSLY corrobating their data because it was TOO RISKY for the Tyrannical Fantasy Peddlers to find, as well as everyone else, that even with some minor flaws, their data and conclusions were RIGHT ON the Truth. Why else would they just slam it down? Were they advocating for totally irresponsible, medically dangerous behaviors or suicide? No!
If they treat it as fairies and unicorns, why fight those fairies and unicorns that anyone and their pets would know right away to be pure figments of someone’s imagination or poorly concocted distortions? They are slammed because they contained TOO MUCH TRUTH, regardless of minor errors, which SCIENCE will always have, as the article says so briliantly: “For Ioannidis, scientific and medical research must be more firmly rooted in an act of humility”.
More humility means more accurate, realistic, political-gluten-free science. These criticized doctors had plenty of that humility and that kind of Truth-Shaming-and-Killing behavior brought against them should not be endorsed by any TRUE Catholics. We should not be guilty by cooperating association or by complicit silence (James 4:4). More TRUE humility also means more unpopular, unsentimental TRUE courage!Like JESUS!!!
It should be disturbing to Americans of ALL stripes that censorship is on the rise. I have NOT been supportive of the shutdown. In the past week and a half I have had remarks I posted removed immediately as not meeting their standards. No racism, no name calling, no profanity. Just a well presented argument against the shut down. I have NEVER had this happen to me before in my life. Its clear that the powers that be only want ONE point of view presented and will not tolerate others. This is the path to totalitarianism. We have a constitutional right to free speech. There is NO constitutional right to never be offended by other’s opinions.
Phil Alcoceli ,
Hello!
Thank you for your comments. I just wish someone had gone over the basic math the walk-in clinic doctors used to make their assumptions. Perhaps someone has, but taking down the video seemed unhelpful. Disagree but don’t silence.
“Disagree but don’t silence”. You got it right, and any Catholic that in any way, form or manner agrees with any degree of communist-style censorship is not a Catholic, an American or anyone that deserves to live in this great country. Those who favor silencing and tyranny in any fashion should go and live on the readily available tyrannies in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and make their passionate, sentimental advocacy right where their dreams are already reality and an “expert-all-knowing” elite controls absolutely everything.
For an amazing, solidly researched article on the REALITY of COVID-19 by a reputable group that cares not about religion or politics but just about stocks, bonds, etc., go to http://www.stansberryresearch.com to their article: “The ‘Big Lie’ Behind COVID-19” (April 17,2020). It contains the SAME solid research that inspired the two criticized doctors we have been talking about and that moved politically correct Dr. Fauci to AGAIN change his mind, do ANOTHER flip and say now that lockdowns are a threat to developing a strong enough immune system, something already said by many who also had been previously slammed, ridiculed and silenced.
I highly recommend that article because it has very interesting perspectives from people who again, are focused on hard facts not mere opinions or political correctness. When Truth wins, the False Idols fall, and too many Catholics are in lustful love with false, elitist “all-knowing” idols, thinking they can particpate in their false “greatness” by blindly supporting them. That’s TOTAL idolatry. Only JESUS is God and we are not (Saint Catherine of Siena). Praise be to the Lord Almighty!!
Dear Phil,
Many thanks for the Stansberry link. If you look at their latest Covid report, towards the end there’s some very interesting information about an inherited disorder prevalent in northern Italy and the Covid disease.
It’s the same disorder that causes destruction of red blood cells when fava beans and other substances are consumed. Anti malarial drugs like hydro chloroquine have the same effect so their use would increase mortality in those patients.
I also read on a medical site that viruses replicated at 12 times greater rates in lung cells from individuals with favism, the genetic disorder common in northern Italy.
I don’t know if that solves anything but it’s very interesting reading.
Thanks so much again!
Dear mrscracker, when you say: ” If you look at their latest Covid report, towards the end there’s some very interesting information about an inherited disorder prevalent in northern Italy and the Covid disease…” Who is those people you mention when you say: “their latest Covid report”? It’s NOWHERE in the Stansberry Research report, that you then conjoin with that information about “favism” that sounds as theoretical and imaginary as a space mutant movie.
Whether that INHERITED “favisn” is totally true, partly true or totally false, why do the WHOLE Population have to pay and be caged for it? I’ve seen how drunkards can invent some of the most outrageous stories to impress others, but scientists DRUNK with Politicized Fake Science can invent stories (or blow them up out of proprotion with impressive “data” and “research” and “serious cases”) much faster than regular drunkards. REALITY says we humans have survived and then thrived out of MANY terrible illnesses and viruses for thousands of years.
Even humble and poor Aficans recently defeated Ebola, infinitely worse than “favism” or any beans or virus provoked, imaginary, ideological gas. Are we supposed to save Nature while constantly cowering in fear from it? When science supports politicized delusions is is no longer science, it is fancy, glorified idolatry and tyranny. Those who consistently, blindly, stubbornly support delusions will NOT see the Face of God: “For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry”, (1 Samuel 15:23).
I thrive in all your words. They give me life in these demonic times. More vigor and discussion and “offending opinions” must prevail. This is the only way we end up with Truth. Reveal the Third Secret. God never censors. We have to stand up for Him and receive our sacraments and fight for the salvation of souls. Pray the rosary, our sword of faith. Pennance and prayer. Keep your eye on the prize. Keep up the fight. Stay strong, you are not alone. God bless you all.
Those on the left have already stated that their objective will always be to take advantage of a crisis to advance their cause. All of their efforts in any area should be viewed through this lens. The Mad Mayor of Chicago illustrates this approach by both her abrasive attitude and her contradictory efforts at controlling the population. It is quite clear that societal benefits are far secondary to the advancement of political power.
That’s why the pandemic is a hoax.
why pay attention to u-tube? of course trolls are there, and every where.
fools look to sources unreliable, they ‘seek their own environment’
nothing new since Isaiah
If anyone listened to the prefect of the congregation of the faith Cardinal Mueller when he appeared with Raymond Arroyo he stated clearly that Laudato Si is not an environmental encyclical it is clearly an encyclical about creation. I have read the document several times and I am a reputable environmentalist, the document is not perfect but it does give us insight into several problems and issues that we need to reflect, pray, and change today,and the pope did right in regards to that crisis. However,the document didn’t speak enough about our traditions of the Catholic Church such as building communities reflecting the Benedictine way, communities with families closely knit together and maintaining the families together. During this time of Crisis we need to relook at how we have been living and restructure as Catholics our way of life we need to build communities that are Catholic we need to build jobs around these communities so that people can maintain their livelihood we need to go back to the small farms and learn from the Amish and the Bruderhoff, and the Hutterites those communities that have existed for 500 years. We need to be humble and learn and build on it because the church has the fullness of the faith if we do not move and change we will die the globalist government will come and control us. We need to promote decentralisation, subsidiarity, and a Catholic holistic way of life that seeks the true meaning of God and the growth of his church on Earth.