Dakota Beacon

Yesterday I addressed the issue of conflict of interest involving some prominent figures in public health - Dr. Anthony Fauci in particular.  There is growing concern over this glaring conflict and its implications for public health and safety.

In her documentary, Plandemic, medical researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits discussed her experiences during the period when she was involved with Fauci in developing HIV treatment/vaccine.  It is an explosive exposé.  She reveals his and others’ - notably Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the CDC - participation in some highly questionable behavior.(I would advise that if you want to see this you go to this link earlier rather than later because it might not be up very long at this site either.)

Mikovits also gives her opinion on a number of things, including her views on wearing masks, on the safety and value of vaccines (she is in favor of vaccines in general).  Supposedly for this she was deplatformed, “debunked”.  It is instructive to take note that Dr. Theresa Tam, the Health Minister of Canada has also given her official opinion that wearing masks is not appropriate and, in fact, poses “safety” issues.  There is no chance that Dr. Theresa Tam will be deplatformed.  

There are matters of substance in Dr. Mikovits’ film which merit investigation.  We should seek to learn more, especially if we are not fully satisfied by the information provided by Mikovits.  Since when has it been deemed appropriate, when we disagree with someone - or even when we entertain doubts as to the truth of his statements - that we shut the person down?  Is this how we arrive finally at the truth?  Or is it more in the American tradition that we hear everyone’s testimony and evidence?  Should we take up the parts of her information that we find not credible and examine them?  Look, perhaps for other evidence to support or discredit it?  Or do we simply decide, out of the bag, that we don’t choose to believe it and therefore, no one may even hear it?  

In the case of Dr. Judy Mikovits that is what has been decided.  You and I are not to be permitted to watch her documentary and question it or consider its merits.   We are not supposed to see it and then be allowed to ask the questions it poses.  

Among questions she raises have to do with the “accelerated evolvement” of the current coronavirus.  She does not allege that the virus was “created” in the Wuhan lab.  She does point to the fact that it could not have evolved “naturally” in the space of time involved.  It would have to have been manipulated.  She also does not allege that it was deliberately released.  She merely notes that viruses do not evolve in the amount of time we are seeing with the COVID-19 virus.  She offers some very interesting and provocative statistics - such as the fact that American soldiers who have been vaccinated present a 36% greater susceptibility to the coronavirus infection.  This would seem like a statistic worthy of our study.

She also raises the question of whether doctors are being incentivised to inflate COVID-19 cases reported.  There is reason to suspect this.  For every patient hospitalized “with COVID-19” that facility receives $13,000 from Medicare.  For every patient who is put on a ventilator (a treatment which has a very poor success rate - 80% of those on ventilators die on the ventilators) the facility receives $39,000.  Is that an incentive?  

Mikovits poses many more questions, all of them important for us to ask, important for us to find the answers to.  

And Youtube and Facebook have decided they will be the medical authorities who will decide what we may ask and what we must be kept in the dark about.  They will be the arbiters of what information we are allowed to hear.  I do not necessarily endorse the views or even the information of Dr. Mikovits.  I tend to believe her for one reason - Dr. Fauci has been part of the effort to silence her and he has much to fear from the light of day.  He owes us all an explanation of why he did not recuse himself from advising the president about coronaviruses, especially anything which we know to have come from Wuhan.  Dr. Fauci, as we said yesterday, is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.  The NIAID has over $7 million in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Yet here he is, standing up on national television in official briefings, blithely dismissing out of hand, without any meaningful investigation, that the virus could possibly have come from the Wuhan lab - despite the fact that experts in medicine and national security fields are saying the opposite.  

Instead of shutting down the views and information offered by Mikovits, those who disbelieve her or disagree with her should counter her information with their own, offer evidence in support of a different view, not seek to shut her up.  And beware those who claim anyone - Mikovits or anyone - has been “debunked”.  This is easily done.  One person says something - usually something important - which someone in a position of power or influence finds harmful to them or even uncomfortable to them..  The reaction is swift - they say it isn’t true, tell Snopes or another rubber stamp “debunker” and Youtube and Facebook and other platforms summarily deplatform the person and take down the video or other information so YOU don’t see it and evaluate it.  Obviously this is un-American and not consistent with our Constitution and our First Amendment.  

Mikovits recounts her experiences of being under a gag order due to having outed some of the powerful people in her field.  One might regard this with skepticism, but for one thing.  I have been reading a friend’s book, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lyndon Johnson and the JFK Assassination.  In the book the author writes of one of the researchers at the infamous Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans, Judyth Vary Baker.  A remarkably similar incident happened to Baker.  She was asked to turn over some private research belonging to someone else and when she refused without the proper authority to do so she was punished.   In both of these cases, Baker and Mikovits acted with integrity and refused to do somethng unethical.  The stories were so similar that for a split second I felt as though I had heard Mikovits’ story before.  I hadn’t - it was in a book just published and referred to Baker.  It is chilling indeed to see the same kind of silencing at work in 2020 as we saw over 50 years ago in the JFK assassination.  One would have hoped we had learned better since then.  

There is always reason for concern when anyone is silenced.  It is always worth hearing people out and looking for the truth.  We shouldn’t believe out of hand everything we hear, but we are adults.  We deserve to hear what others say and take the responsibility to find the truth.  If there were good answers to Mikovits’ questions - the questions she poses and the interpretations she offers - there would be no need to shut her up or prevent the rest of us from hearing her.  This business of silencing those who disagree for any reason with the “accepted” version is very dangerous.  We saw what happened in China when Dr. Li Wenliang tried to tell us about the novel coronavirus that was causing a mysterious “unknown” pneumonia.  China’s penchant for shutting people up is harmful - it is not something we should aspire to emulate in America.  

Comments:  (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)