Besides that which is objectively verifiable and inarguable, another gauge that I rely on more often when assessing information that’s not as yet clear cut, and perhaps may never be, is the tone and demeanor of those conveying it. Incivility, for one example, is an easy tell for insincerity, lying, bad intent, and abuse of power when the incivility is coupled with a position of wanting or attempting to compel others to do or not do something and has the force of the state to back up that compulsion.
While not uncivil, it is difficult to watch the coward of a man in this video attempt to equivocate his self-serving and catastrophic position, and which he only even feebly does, knowing how indefensible it is. He can barely look at the woman, and makes little attempt to prevent her frequent interruptions, knowing he hasn’t a leg to stand on. This is the very definition of ‘regulatory capture’ (as in, Wall Street owns the SEC; Monsanto owns the FDA, EPA, etc.), and his is the face of a corrupted and cowed bureaucrat. He is not protecting the general welfare, which is ostensibly his job. Dr. Hill is, rather, protecting his job and serving a different purpose.
So, for anyone with an open mind that’s been wondering if Ivermectin is or would have actually been helpful during the situation of the last two years (which is all better now – for the moment – with the European war come to replace it as the crisis of the moment), here’s your answer. There are many studies saying that IVM works, but those are countered by other studies, and fact-checkers, and late-night comedians, and mostly, by the agencies and people that guide the mainstream, approved narrative of the past two years. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination to weed through and weigh all that out.
Anyone has enough time to watch this, however, and watching it one realizes that the claims that Ivermectin works were always true, had to be, as this exchange makes obvious (and that being true, then, the injections were never candidates for emergency use authorization, since with IVM there was always an effective remedy available, so the justification for the EUA was never valid, the same or hydroxychloroquine). One of these people is lying, dodging, showing no integrity. It’s not Dr. Lawrie. She’s on firm ground and she knows it. It’s a humiliating thing to watch, actually. Dr. Hill is embarassingly weak, and people surely died needlessly because of it.
I believe this dynamic informs everything non-trivial that happens in the public sphere, and is the consequential part of why I don’t support centralized power. It always gets captured, and so far cannot be prevented from being so. People like this man and their positions always come to authority over others, or are allowed to, or are specifically installed into such stations, recruited into the service of those with genuine power. His position is weak, wrong and super harmful. It also has had the official backing of states worldwide, the mainstream scientific and medical communities, and major corporate news media.
That is the problem underlying everything, every issue of importance. The details and the particular situations and issues change; that paradigm never does, but it needs to now. It used to be a murkier thing, but it’s become pretty clear at this point, at least for anyone willing to acknowledge that which is standing right in front of them.
