Thread by @CovfefeAnon

Great thread by 17c.

Expanding a bit:

The system compulsively cultivates "expert opinion" in every area - co-opting the consensus to ensure that it is always pro-expansion of regime power in one way or another and the only valid opinion in an area.

https://twitter.com/17cShyteposter/status/1391542660008005633

See the recent N Wade piece about the lab leak hypothesis

What was the system doing? In one sense box ticking - the system needs to be thought of as serious so it funds some research that it can plausibly describe as being done to "prevent pandemics"

nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covi…

The output existed - papers that were shiny and *peer reviewed* so the reddit tier people can bark like seals about *peer review*.

At the same time, it created a stifling "consensus" in the field to *never question the logic of doing that research in the first place*.

Anyone who did risked getting cut off from grants and out of science and then that person isn't a brave scientist but an outside crank.

The system was doing something insane but had to protect it because it couldn't think because to think throws the whole system into question.

Once the pandemic was unleashed it turns out that there was another "consensus" - based on absolutely nothing at all (so they claim) but actually based on the same needs of protecting the system - the idea that "closing borders doesn't work to stop disease transmission".

Of course that idea is fundamentally *insane* if the germ theory of disease is correct - if infected people don't cross borders, then infections don't spread but the "consensus" opposed it.

nytimes.com/2020/09/30/wor…

How would "open borders fight disease"?

Truly a baffling prospect but one *necessary* for the the system - that there is no downside the things the system needs and wants. It only has to consider expert opinion and it owns all the experts - disagree and you're not an expert.