West

1. No you are misreading my comment. You are getting hung up on Dr. Julie to skirt the broader point which is the lunatics have went after any academic who disagrees and resorted to ad hominems. 2. I'm not interested in ad hominems like fauci and the like have engaged in. So far we've went with their solutions, caused irreparable harm to the wellbeing of the citizens including economic and opportunity loss for the citizens, and still nowhere near being out of the woods with Covid. Small business closures, government banging down the doors of businesses and churches, and ridding academia of any dissenting voices. We've denied people the right to try early treatments. If these early treatments worked, awesome we'd save the healthcare system. If not, we'd be in the same position. No sense in the ad hominems This is cancel culture to the extreme and is disgusting

1. No there's examples of people being pushed out ie Dr. Christian 2. Even if on a paid leave she's still not allowed to teach. 3. Which is why I'm asking you.

How about Dr Christian? Fired from the u of s for pondering if you could actually make the "state of emergency" claim for children and keep them out of school. And a leave for what? Refusing an injection? You actually okay with the covid cult forcing injections on people?

People were fired after several years of service in their fields. If that's not destroyed don't know what is. Kind of a scary place to be when a small handful of lunatics who control funding resort to ad hominems and personal vendetta. Many died because of people like this not focusing on early treatment but lockdowns and the like. The crazies like Fauci who led these responses are responsible for these deaths. Killed many grandmothers unfortunately

The information is from a small group absolutely. And they destroy anyone who is against the mandates. Sort of cult like if you ask me.

1. Yes they all appear to be walking in lockstep with the WHO. 2. How about Julie Ponesse, an ethic prof, losing her job for question why vaccine verification was necessary? Ad hominems against Byron Briddle of Carlton (I believe), an immunonlogist, for his research on mrna causing cancers? Dr. Christian, head of the U of S surgery department for questioning if there was justification for lockdowns against kids who weren't really a high risk group? What about the CDC calling Ivermectin, a Pulitzer winning medication "horse dewormer"? Fauci, a man who controls the research funding pool in the US going for the takedown in a newspaper of all places of people asking for early treatment? Any people pushing early treatment were labeled as "fringe" while a few million died globally. Plenty of evidence of political decisions in the mainstream. Now why would you go to the point of TERMINATING anyone who raises valid points and goes against the mainstream? Well then you can say "see all scientists agree with our point of view". Well no doubt. You just got rid of those who don't and sent a message to others who may dissent.

For starters I don't claim to be left or right but it's obvious from the beginning of this whole thing that the narrative was being shaped by a small group of people. Fauci or not, one of the big things I found most troubling early on was not just scientific disagreements or hypothesis, but actual character assassinations of scientists who didn't go along with the narrative. This more often than not came from the fauci camp labelling anything they disagreed with as "disinformation" and "conspiracy theories". A few that have had their character assassinated (even though they had contributions in some cases for many years to their fields) would include Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Byram Briddle, Professor Christian (U of S) and others. Really it made no sense to trash these guys reputations. Why would they lie and make stuff up, risking jobs in the process?