Not because I don't have anything to say, but because I have too much and most of it would be banned, which in itself is pretty sinister, for do we not have a human right to spout sh*t on our own blogs and social media, if that's what it is?
Isn't it up to genuine readers to decide what does and doesn't ring true?
So I will share an analogy of just one aspect of what I am currently trying to get my head around re the world situation.
A Product Like Any Other...
Let's say a brand new toaster came onto the market.
While some people swore it warmed the bread to some degree it soon became evident it didn't actually seem to toast anything and sometimes injured the user in the process of trying to make toast, yet not only could individuals not return the product, they found they had no consumer protection under it, had to pretend to everyone else that it worked and if they expressed any doubts about it, found themselves social media shamed for 'spreading disinformation'.
Those who questioned the toaster's necessity in the first place or pointed out it was not the only way to make toast, found themselves branded 'conspiracy theorists' or 'anti-toasters', bullied and coerced into acquiring it and even threatened with no job or freedoms if they didn't.
Apparently no one had toast until everyone had toast!
As if that weren't bad enough, they were required to sign up to three toasters a year (or two plus a booster toaster) to get 'normal' back!
If they didn't, that meant other people died and it was their fault for being 'selfish' (apparently), though no evidence was ever provided for this assertion.
While many who complied with accepting the toaster realised it wasn't what was promised on the box (ie safety and freedom), and a significant number didn't quite feel right after using it, or noticed mysterious illnesses or deaths in their family, colleague or friendship circles, somehow this didn't prompt them to join the dots or speak up.
Was it peer pressure?
Was it herd instinct?
Were they too embarrassed to admit they could be wrong?
Were they earning a living promoting, distributing or selling the toaster?
Did they have shares in the toaster manufacturers?
It was all very mysterious as humankind had got along perfectly well before the toaster was invented.
Meantime it was all their Christmases at once for the toaster manufacturers. They had truly never come up with such a moneyspinning mass market repeat product! And to wangle liability-exemption as well! But it didn't stop there. Having intially stated it would only be for the 'elderly and vulnerable' they quickly got their sponsored technicians to tell governments that everyone needed their product including children.
The moral of this story? This is just a PRODUCT at the end of the day and like any other PRODUCT, it needs accountability and liability, including pulling from the market if it does not work or causes more harm than good.
There are MANY highly qualified independent medical/scientific/legal experts out there demanding this needs to happen who have been deplatformed for their views. Go search them. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out. So why would they if they weren't genuinely concerned about what is going on? And why hasn't there been a nationwide product risk assessment at the very least?
No comments:
Post a Comment