[YouTube keeps removing the video, and people keep sticking it back up. Search YouTube for “plandemic” or “Makovits”. You want the version of about 26 minutes.]
The real payload starts at 9:25, and is riveting stuff.
The parallels with climate change are very strong, even down to the unflattering biography of Dr Makovits in Wikipedia.
- You don’t get funded or published if you don’t speak the party line.
- The field is dominated by individuals seeking to profit from the “science”, some of who become quite wealthy.
- Honest scientists are driven out or quit, so after a few decades the entire field is corrupt.
I can also vouch for the Reagan-era change to patents that drives some of this in academia. The rule change allowed individuals at universities to benefit from patents based on their work. Ok, there’s an incentive, and universities produced massively more patents. But it also changed people’s behavior in ways that are not good for society, or production of knowledge, and research became driven by patent officers at universities. I saw it first hand — I have such a patent, or rather Stanford does on my behalf (though no one ever made any money from it because it’s too esoteric).
We’ve mentioned the strange flow of money by Dr Fauci to the Wuhan Institute of Virology before. Clearly there is some explaining to do surrounding the origins of COVID and the money flows to the individuals running the show. Huge vaccine profits clearly have the potential to incentivize people in all the wrong ways.
The extra deaths associated with COVID are real enough, which we know because we see all-cause mortality spiking. But there are good questions here about exactly why that is so and the exact nature of the association.
Dr Makovits confirms that COVID came from a lab, even if it is “natural” in some senses.
It’s good to see questioning of COVID that does not rely on studies they quote which don’t stand up (usually due to overestimating unconfirmed infections, based on selection bias or false positives, such as the Stanford/Santa Clara study) or which are misquoted (e.g. the Iceland study). Misusing studies to support an argument nullifies the reasoning, so the argument is dismissed, obviously enough. The argument might happen to be true, but not for the reasons given — but if false “evidence” is the best that can be found then it probably isn’t true.
Btw, I’ve never got a flu vaccine because it weakens your immune system. Interesting to see that the flu deaths are inflated about sixfold by any reasonable measure (such as by including all pneumonia deaths, even though pneumonia has about 38 causes). That exaggeration sells more vaccines though.
UPDATE: More on the Plandemic controversy.
hat-tip Stephen Harper