Wishing to stay neutral on a topic is nothing necessarily revealing of anything other than wishing to remain neutral.
For instance Offg doesn’t come down hard on the viral debate because, in terms of tackling Covid and vaccine topics, it’s more effective to point out blatant inconsistencies in the official narrative using its own logic.
As soon as you bring the non-existence of viruses into the equation it can be argued all bets are off, countering the mainstream narrative is harder and your position is potentially seriously weakened. For example, the issue of contagion…
How does one most efficiently point out the flawed logic of masks, and most effectively fight the use of masks as a social obedience ritual, if contagion via viral pathogen is a myth?
Some argue that all pathogenic contagion is a myth – terrain theory – and you’re left asking what IS observable contagion in this case? A sympathetic detox triggered by those around you? How does one treat that then, if it’s essentially a product of the mind?
Perhaps contagion is far more belief-based? In which case, does one most-effectively ward off contagion using belief, rather than science?
Do you see the implications here? If anyone has any thoughts on this, or can point me in any useful directions, please do. Thanks!
A2
