It's not hard to read this as terror about loss of control of narrative.
Accusations of "denial" are the shortcut to proving the interlocutor's bad faith: nefarious connections, sinister motivations, profit-seeking and malign intent.
I was clever enough not to be sucked into an authoritarian regime's war mongering.
David wasn't.
And I'm clever enough to spot the pattern.
David isn't.
So, he can have a pissing contest about who is the cleverest if he desires. I think the last 20 years shows that any dialogue with him is pretty much pointless.
I only point to him to demonstrate the tendency of vapid journalists, again.
Here's what accusing people of "denial" means: "I believe X must be true, and the only reasons I can think of for denial of X are nefarious, but I'm not going to explore the disagreement, I'm going to instead impugn motives for disagreeing and then double down when challenged".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The piece in summary is "There should be no expectation that scientists fall into line with a consensus.... Except that scientists who do not fall into line with a consensus are industry-funded propagandists who are only in it for the money".
Throughout the piece, claims like "it is misleading to suggest that giving up on suppression is anything but an outlier position" go unsubstantiated.
Even the WHO has now stated a position AGAINST lockdowns.
I find this extraordinary. In the background to claims that the GBD's authors were wrong is the fact that the models used to drive policy were wrong, authored by a team of people who have a much longer history of being wrong.
This isn't about using science to find the best way forward under uncertainty. It's about defending institutional science and its intransigent panjandrums.
This is broadly right. The 'great reset' is hardly a secret.
*FAR* too much emphasis is given to *artefacts* of global politics such as the GR, and "agenda 21", and all that, at the cost of looking at the facts of global politics, and what may be driving it.
So, yes, it's i) anti-democratic, ii) a power grab, iii) a land grab, iv) a wealth grab, v) utterly illegitimate...
But it's also being given away freely by virtue of a f***ing dreadful political establishment, appointed *by* *us*, which cannot tell its own a*se from its elbow.
And they are all truly weird. They want to design your lifestyle, your city, your life, to intervene in, monitor, regulate and control your every decision. And it's a bizarre compact of academia, "science", global institutions, govts, corps.
I've been smeared in the Guardian, and by Guardian journalists, as have many others. I've never been asked "why do you believe X", I've only been told "you believe X".
The closest I ever came to an actual discussion of substance with a Guardian "journalist", we found a point of disagreement, and he said "we'll have to agree to disagree about that", rather than discuss it. Instead, he wanted to tell me about my "ideology".