Yesterday, Youtube removed a 5 million+ viewed video of Drs. Erickson and Massih, two bonafide ER professionals, being interviewed by Channel 23 KERO in California.  The video’s topic?  That the actual science and data showed that the measures taken over CV19 Event were unwarranted and purposeless.  Real data from real, on-the-frontline, doctors.

At around minute 24-ish in the video (thankfully, I had downloaded the video the day before), there’s a reporter asking them if they were saying Dr. Fauci (whose name means “sickle maker” or “sickle user” ) was wrong and they were right.

Remember, anyone can make ANY claim they want.  You always accept the claim and then make a counter-claim if that is warranted (sometimes, after all, they may be right).  I thought about the reply for these kind of questions, which are actually rhetorical questions… making a statement in question-form.  The reporter, by his tone and his repeated insertion of, “with all due respect,” indicated that he was attacking the credibility of these doctor’s conclusions – even though their credibility as doctors was well established at the beginning and was the reason they were having the interview to begin with.  As well, the doctors constantly announced that the numbers they were using were publicly available.

Answering any claim is always to get to the root of the question.  Rarely (never?) is any claim made without some underlying mindset.  So, you want to address the actual problem being addressed by the statement/question posed.  Here is a dialogue that gets to the mindset problem while making a counter-claim:

“You are really asking the question, why should you listen to me? (always re-state the question) 

That’s a fair question. (acceptance of claim)

In fact, if more people would ask all those who espouse expertise and authority that question, this world would be a much better place.  I am presenting to you facts on the ground, that is, data collected from actual sources going through something. It’s up to YOU to take that data and my interpretation of those facts and decide for yourself what to make of it… I’m NOT asking you to take my word for it, but to use your OWN mind to determine what’s true… and one of the best ways to make determinations about facts is whether they match observation or are contradictory to those observations… and that includes not only the raw facts, but the fact of human behavior as well.

To assume someone espoused as an expert is making the right decisions, is not thinking critically, but deferring to expertise, which is a dangerous mindset to have.  The experts have access to the same facts that I’m presenting here today… so why so different a conclusion? Because they see the world differently… they are removed from things and people… they read about people and things from reports and newspapers, but do not know or remember or sometimes even care to know what looking into the eyes of a person suffering by decisions made them has on people… they’re perspective is formed out of control and that’s why we are to assess things for ourselves…
What do you actually see? What have we actually seen in the past? Can we have a knee-jerk reaction to things because we don’t yet have enough facts? Possibly… but I tell you that we had a strong indication of what we were dealing with right from the beginning with the Diamond Princess cruise ship infection in Japan.  Seventeen percent testing positive, .19 death rate and all those seven people dying were over 70 years old which gave AT LEAST an indication of how to proceed
(annual influenza morbidity is in the .13% range for comparison). But computer algorithms were employed, not actual data… and the effects of their expert opinions have led to this precipice we are now teetering over.

So, the real answer to your question isn’t what I think about it after seeing the actual data, but what do YOU think about it?”