Overheidsadviseur en coronadissident Dr. Scott Atlas is het volledig met ons eens

I had to share this great interview with medical specialist and top advisor Dr. Scott Atlas. But it takes an hour and a half, so that will be a bridge too far for many. That's why this summary, the link to the interview is at the bottom. Those who This article from March 2021 When watching the video, he will realize that we already knew most of it back then. Scott Atlas too. Attention should now be focused on the cowardly, collaborative attitude of the media and corrupted science.

Die media realiseren zich niet dat ze onderdeel zijn van de Quadras Politica. In de tijd van Montesquieu bestond die vierde poot nog niet, toen bepaalden burgers nog zelf hun mening in salons en genootschappen - al hadden die ook al te kampen met overheidsinfiltranten en mecenassen met dwingende agenda's. Er wordt nog steeds gemekkerd over de Trias Politica van de democratie terwijl die democratie waardeloos is als informatie en communicatie worden beperkt. Dat terzijde.

Dr. Atlas has found that the Corona task force members, which included prominent figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx, and Dr. Robert Redfield, behaved like bureaucrats rather than scientists. They rarely brought scientific papers or data to the meetings, and when he presented data himself, there was almost never any criticism of those studies; There was also no reference to contradictory dates. This lack of scientific criticism and debate frustrated him greatly, as he was always well prepared, with extensive scientific literature and data to back up his views.

A notable incident occurred when Dr. Fauci proposed a meeting between the Task Force physicians to learn from each other and possibly come to a common position. Dr. Atlas suggested inviting outside epidemiologists and medical scientists who he knew were actively researching the pandemic. This proposal was abruptly rejected by Dr. Fauci, who made it clear that he did not want to involve outside parties. It then became clear to Atlas how the task force operated in a closed system with no room for real scientific discussion or external input.

[This is such a recognizable pattern -see with us the OMT, RIVM, the German RKI etc- that you might wonder why no counter-mechanisms have yet been set up for this. I also know the answer: that's not how power works. It's going to be a long, long battle. That's why you should always distrust centers of power, no matter who participates in them.]

In addition, Dr. Atlas recalls his first task force meeting in which Vice President Mike Pence asked if everyone agreed with a particular statement about the risk to children. Scott Atlas, the newcomer, argued that that statement (about disease risk and infectivity) was absolutely contrary to the data and demonstrated it. It didn't matter. This became a recurring theme in the meetings, with him often being the only one to object to the groupthink and incorrect assumptions of the other task force members. Nevertheless, the consensus remained unchanged.

The degree of groupthink and the lack of critical scientific approach within the task force makes it clear that the members were more concerned with political considerations and protecting their own positions than with actually following the scientific data. This led to frustration and, above all, concerns about the quality of decision-making that directly affected national policy during the pandemic.

How did he get to that task force?

Dr. Atlas was eerst gevraagd als niet-publieke adviseur van de president. Dat initiatief moet na de uitnodiging teruggefloten zijn want hij werd bij aankomst gevraagd deel te nemen aan taskforcevergaderingen (OMT-idee). Zijn eerste vergaderingen waren confronterend omdat hij het te vaak fundamenteel oneens was met de andere taskforceleden zoals Dr. Fauci en Dr. Birx. (Deborah Leah Birx, geboren op 4 april 1956) is een Amerikaanse arts en diplomaat die van 2020 tot 2021 de functie van White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator vervulde onder president Donald J. Trump.) Er werd in de task force dus niet wetenschappelijk gedebatteerd, er werden uitsluitend 'expert opinions' zonder onderbouwing uitgewisseld. Scott Atlas zelf bracht altijd gedetailleerde wetenschappelijke studies en gegevens mee om zijn standpunten te onderbouwen. Dat is onmiskenbaar wappie-gedrag waarmee hij zichzelf eigenlijk buiten de groep plaatste.

Key Points

Dr. Scott Atlas is one of the many scientists who have known for years how things work (see also above The article of March 2021 with the video recording of a round table hearing of Ron DeSantis with Dr. Scott Atlas, Professor Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff.)

1. Risk of COVID-19: Dr. Atlas pointed out that most of the people at risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 were older adults with multiple comorbidities. Young people and healthy people were much less at risk.
2. Lockdowns and school closures: He emphasized that lockdowns and school closures caused tremendous damage, especially in terms of children's mental health and education. Studies showed that schools were not a significant source of COVID-19 spread.
3. Masks: Dr. Atlas stated that masks were ineffective in preventing the spread of viral respiratory infections, including COVID-19. This was based on several scientific studies that he cited.
4. Vaccinations: Hoewel vaccins nuttig waren voor hoogrisicogroepen, was hij tegen vaccinmandaten, vooral voor kinderen en jongere volwassenen die een zeer laag risico liepen. Hij benadrukte de noodzaak van transparantie en eerlijke communicatie over de risico's en voordelen van vaccins.
5. Censorship and scientific debates: Dr. Atlas criticized the censorship of dissent and emphasized the importance of open scientific discussion. He cited examples of how he and others were obstructed or censored for expressing their views.

That last point: censorship and the total cowardly failure of media and journalists (the last episode of Op1 also deserves attention here, but yes, later maybe) is the most interesting to me, we know those earlier facts. But why don't the media and science know yet? It comes Later in the video addressed.

Dr. Scott Atlas on the Influence of Funding on Scientific Research

Atlas takes an in-depth look at the impact of funding on scientific research and how it has impacted the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The main funder of scientific research in the United States, and thus indirectly worldwide, is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This organization is led by a small but powerful group of people who are both politically connected and interdependent. This group often consists of department heads of medical schools and editors of scientific journals.

Ook dat klinkt weer als een gremium dat een makkelijke prooi is voor zichzelf versterkend machtsbehoud. Vochtige was moet je ook niet op elkaar laten liggen. "Doa brik get oet!" zou mijn moeder zeggen.

To continue with Atlas: Worrisomely, academic scientists and universities rely heavily on NIH grants for their PhD and research funding. Atlas says that more than 15 university medical centers in the United States receive more than $500 million in funding from the NIH each year. This dependency creates an environment in which young scientists and universities are reluctant to be critical of the NIH, for fear of losing their funding. This leads to a lack of integrity and courage to express dissent or go against the status quo.

This dependency and lack of critical attitudes contribute to the problem that many scientists and medical professionals do not feel free to express dissent, even when there is a strong scientific basis for doing so. This was exposed under pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic, where dissenting voices were suppressed and censored.

Decentralization of scientific research funding is a necessity to reduce the power of this small group of bureaucrats and foster a more diverse and independent scientific community. Also, maximum deadlines for top jobs within the NIH and other health agencies should be set to limit the constant influence of the same individuals and to promote a fresh and critical view of scientific research.

Scott Atlas' concerns highlight the need for transparency and reform within the structure of scientific funding to ensure that scientific research is guided by data and integrity, rather than political and financial interests.

De miljardenindustrie van preventieve producten die aan de hele wereldbevoking worden voorgeschreven (dus niet alleen aan zieken) is een gemakkelijke prooi voor systeemcorruptie. Een besmettelijke hersenschimmel met uitlopers in de politiek, de media en andere wetenschappelijke disciplines die steeds vaker ideologieën en overtuigingen meenemen in hun activiteiten. Anders denken ze dat ze fout bezig zijn...

Conclusion

Atlas emphatically states that the policies during the pandemic contradicted known scientific data and that this led to large, unnecessary harm, especially for children and young people. To prevent a recurrence, we need more transparency, open scientific discussion and a review of the way health policy is conducted, in order to prevent such mistakes from being repeated in the future.

These are all rules that run counter to the self-preservation of the acquired positions of power. It's going to be an interesting battle.