The Slow Reversal of Pandemic Claims

Prominent figures involved in the pandemic response have been gradually retracting their assertions about the global compulsory regime that dominated life for the past two and a half years. This shift in narrative seems to validate the critics who were previously silenced or banned on social media for allegedly spreading misinformation.

Dr. Robert Redfield's Revelations

Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is one such figure. During his tenure, which coincided with the start of the lockdowns, he seemed out of his depth, struggling to navigate the bureaucratic chaos that engulfed the agency. Despite his attempts to be a team player, his current words hint at a sense of bitterness. He has previously suggested that the virus could have originated from a gain-of-function lab leak and expressed skepticism towards the vaccine, even suggesting that a homemade mask might be more effective. He was never fully on board with the entire plan and was even excluded from meetings with other key figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. Redfield has now voiced what many have been saying from the start. He believes that healthy individuals under 60 didn't necessarily need the vaccines and acknowledges that the vaccines have caused significant side effects. While this information is not new to those who have been following the situation closely, its significance lies in the source. Redfield still believes that the vaccines have saved many lives, although this claim is widely disputed. What's remarkable is that the former CDC head is openly questioning the need for healthy adults and children to get vaccinated, especially given that vaccines are now part of the childhood schedule and mandates still dominate academia and U.S. citizenship policy.

Francis Collins on Social Distancing

Francis Collins, former head of the National Institutes for Health, has admitted that there was never any scientific basis for social distancing. The six-foot rule, which may seem harmless, was the reason for school closures, the banning of gatherings, and the limitation or closure of businesses. It led to a strange dance that lasted nearly two years, with people avoiding close contact with each other. The concept of social distancing seems to have been inspired by a middle school science model based on the children's game of Cooties. Despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness, it became a governing principle of our lives. Research conducted over 15 years on physical interventions to interrupt virus spread showed that they made no difference at all, yet these measures were still implemented with devastating consequences.

Accountability for Vaccine Damages

Vaccine manufacturers are protected by law from paying for any harms caused by their products, raising questions about liability. The pharmaceutical companies argue that if they were held responsible for damages, they could never produce any vaccines. This claim should be cause for concern. In a market economy governed by the rule of law, manufacturers should bear responsibility for any harm caused by their products. This should apply to pharmaceutical companies as well, especially when their products are forcibly administered to most of the population.

Retrospective Reflections

The Cuomo brothers, former New York Governor Andrew and former CNN commentator Chris, are also trying to retract their previous actions and statements. Andrew now claims that all the mandates were unenforceable, despite the fact that police were actively enforcing these rules. Meanwhile, Chris has revealed that he suffered adverse effects from the vaccine and has started inviting more dissenting voices on his show on News Nation.

Questioning the Motives

If the evidence was clear from the start that these measures could not control the virus, and if the vaccine trials showed high injury rates and lack of effectiveness, why were these experimental strategies implemented? One theory suggests that the entire protocol was designed to maintain the population's immunological naivety as long as possible so that vaccines could be presented as the savior. This theory, while speculative, could explain why so many ineffective strategies were attempted. It could also explain why the World Health Organization changed the definition of herd immunity to be exclusively a product of vaccines. However, this plan faced several issues. Firstly, people quickly realized that the virus was not as serious as it was made out to be. Secondly, people were exposed and gained natural immunity. Lastly, the vaccines did not work as intended and caused significant harm.

Conclusion

If there was indeed a conspiracy, it failed. The truth about the real agenda behind these measures will eventually come to light. However, those in charge are likely to admit as little as possible in the meantime, hoping that public outrage will subside over time. This gradual reversal of claims may take years, and the entire episode may eventually fade into the annals of history. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree with the assertions made in this article? Share it with your friends and let's get a conversation going. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.