Media Interview #1

In my latest 2am imagined debate with an interviewing mainstream media activist, we had the following conversation:

Journalist: “I cannot understand the mind of someone who fights against science and jeopardizes the safety of their family and community. Can you help me understand?”

Me: “You find it surprising that I am questioning the government and mainstream media narrative?”

Journalist: “That’s another issue. I find it surprising that you resist getting the vaccine when the science about it’s safety and efficacy is absolutely clear and settled. Why is that?”

Me: “You think that all doctors and health researchers in the world are in agreement about the safety and the efficacy of the new experimental mRNA therapeutic treatment?”

Journalist: “No I don’t, but I know that the majority of them are.”

Me: “Do you believe that science is progressed by the majority rather than by a minority of those that think out of the box and have everything to lose by voicing their opinions?”

Journalist: “But the evidence showing the vaccines are effective is overwhelming!”

Me: “I think the evidence is underwhelming. Gibraltar is more than 100% injected and yet they are experiencing a Covid surge. Other highly injected countries are also showing surges. Why is that?” [evidence is here, here and in the figure below – now a bit old].

Journalist: “But the vaccines protect people from being hospitalized and dying from Covid. The science on that is clear and settled.”

Me: “Yes, the evidence does suggest that the injections give such benefits for a few months, but those benefits are mainly for the tiny minority of people who have comorbidities and have a real risk of dying from Covid. If the mRNA treatments do not confer immunity and are mainly intended to lessen the symptoms, why are they called vaccines and why are they mandated?”

Journalist: “The new CDC definition of a vaccine says it is something that gives ‘protection’, not immunity.”

Me: “Why was it necessary to change the definition of a vaccine?” (evidence is here, and below)

Journalist: “The definition was changed so that people who don’t want to take it can be called ‘anti-vaxxers’ – it gives Bill Gates an edge [laughs]. No, only kidding. I don’t really know why they changed the definition recently, but the Washington Post says it is because no vaccine provides 100 percent immunity. It is therefore more accurate as it now stands.”

Me: “Why did immunologists and virologists not get the definition correct in the past 100 years after the successes with the measles and smallpox vaccines?”

Journalist: “Because science EVOLVES! It is not just fixed and settled once and for all!”

Me: “But earlier you said the science is settled?”

Journalist: “[Sigh] Do you believe that Covid-19 is an evil conspiracy – the [makes quotation sign] ‘Great Reset’?”

Me: “It depends. If someone publishes a book called [makes quotation sign] ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ which lays out a grand new plan for a new world order, and then governments start explicitly implementing that plan, is that a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy or a fact?”

Journalist: “Well, let me put it this way – do you believe that Bill Gates is trying to reduce the World Population?”

Me: “I believe Bill Gates has a globalist vision and is driven primarily by a motive for profit and monopoly of resources. His brain is wired for those objectives. He also thinks his cause is so noble that he is willing to cooperate with villains and aggressively suppress dissent. I don’t think he has a moral compass that prevents him from doing such things.”

Journalist: “But he donated billions of dollars to good causes!”

Me: “Do you think those causes made him wealthier or poorer?”

Journalist: “According to my research, Gates was worth about 50 billion in 2010, when he made his pledge to give away a lot of his money. He is now worth 97 billion.”

Me: “OK?”

Journalist: “So you think it is all about power and money and not about the virus?”

Me: “I think Gates and western world governments are using the virus as a vehicle to achieve political and ideological goals.”

Journalist: “Oh, now the government is also part of your conspiracy!”

Me: “Well, you tell me: at a time when democratic rights are being removed and the government is paying the media and not allowing public debates on key issues – do you think it is rational for a citizen to take extra care and investigate for themselves?”

Journalist: “We in the media are still there to investigate and check that the government is doing their job.”

Me: “Really? Then why are you here interviewing an unknown member of the public that does not agree with the government? Why are you not questioning the government about their views on conflicts of interest in the FDA and the CDC, or to ask why, during the Pfizer trial, more people died in the injected group than in the placebo group?” [references are given in this article]

Figure is from this article [original source not known]

Journalist: “You’ve offended me. I’m leaving now!”

Me: Drifts off to sleep

Please share my blog as widely as you feel comfortable to do. I do not want to sound alarmist, as is the habit of the mainstream media, but I really do believe we are in a battle in which technocrats and political ideologues are attempting to force a centralized, dehumanized and atheist-scientific-materialist way of life on us.

Also have a look at my Resources Page for useful videos to make you understand what is going on, and to find support groups to make you feel less alone and crazy.

Subscribe to my blog to get email notifications whenever I post something.

Thanks for visiting!