Dear Dr. Nass, I am sorry you have decided to give an unfortunate spin to what many people find is an open question and a huge problem.
It is not so much a simple „black and white game“ (which to my understanding you are suggesting by calling for „us“ to stop infighting), but rather a serious issue about possible strategies „they“ might employ in reaching their goal(s).
One key take away from History is that whoever is perpetrating a crime has been thinking a great deal beforehand to preempt their victim from mounting a successful response.
Some of such measures include subversion of agents into the camp of the „victims“. Some examples of such efforts include the infamous Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who has been put in charge of the the Dutch resistance even though he was an officer in the SS, as well as IG Farben executive and Member of the Nazi Party. Bernhard sabotaged Operation Market Garden by setting free a Double Agent who had already been identified by the British Counterintelligence. Bernhard prevented that man from being locked-up and charged by declaring him essential for the job of informing the Dutch Resistance in Eindhoven and Arnhem about the impending operation. The guy, instead, went and informed the Abwehr, resulting in the Wehrmacht learning about the operation and stopping the advance at Arnhem (where 10 years later Bernhard would triumphantly convene the first Bilderberger meeting).
Of course, we do not know today, who might be such a Bernhard. But we must take the possibility that among „Generals“ of the Resistance some Bernhards will have been implanted.
Therefore it can not be the most important thing to stop questions. Questions need to be asked. It is the answers which will be giving away who is „us“ and who is „them“.
If those who ask important questions are deemed CO per se, „we“ have a problem.
From what I can see you have named some items of where indeed answers have been given on questions which do not need repeating unless new evidence emerges.
However, I find it unfortunate that on your list of events and explanations the question of „spread“ and „mortality“ has been presented in a rather oversimplified way.
If „we“ agree that no government should have the right to restrict basic human rights on the grounds of assumptions which lack basic rationale, then the NYC questions which Jessica Hockett, Jonathan Engler, Martin Neal and others have raised should have received more attention amongst „ourselves“ and more support from „generals“ on „our side“.
This also goes for questions which Jonathan Couey has raised about potential use of agents which may have caused isolated events but which lack infectious potential.
This issue seems particular important, as JJ is questioning the potential of GOF on RNA viruses causing epidemics, let alone pandemics.
This question has not been properly discussed, but the warnings for „the big one to come“ which some „Generals“ on „our side“ are issuing do provide the rationale for an alleged „need for countermeasures“.
Therefore I find it quite essential for „us“ to be engaging a bit more in proper discussion about such scenarios. That scientists such as JJ should get the axe instead, seems very unfortunate against this backdrop.
To make it clear: I am not arguing pro or con any particular position.
But the call to „shut up and fall in line“ seems inappropriate to me.
I didn't see any call to „shut up and fall in line“.
In fact the subtitle is "Surely we can have a discussion among ourselves about certain things?" which I read as inviting people to talk.
"Can we get back to arguing about arguments and stop attacking people for holding those positions?" doesn't sound like „shut up and fall in line“ to me.
I did not say that Dr. Nass has posed that demand. But other "leaders" have, and some of those have been defended by Dr. Nass. So, I believe, indirectly her piece might have been an attempt to make requests from Jessica Hockett and JJ Couey go away. If that is not the case, I apologize, and would invite Dr. Nass to come out and support Jessica and JJ in their quests for clarification.
Dear Dr. Nass, I am sorry you have decided to give an unfortunate spin to what many people find is an open question and a huge problem.
It is not so much a simple „black and white game“ (which to my understanding you are suggesting by calling for „us“ to stop infighting), but rather a serious issue about possible strategies „they“ might employ in reaching their goal(s).
One key take away from History is that whoever is perpetrating a crime has been thinking a great deal beforehand to preempt their victim from mounting a successful response.
Some of such measures include subversion of agents into the camp of the „victims“. Some examples of such efforts include the infamous Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who has been put in charge of the the Dutch resistance even though he was an officer in the SS, as well as IG Farben executive and Member of the Nazi Party. Bernhard sabotaged Operation Market Garden by setting free a Double Agent who had already been identified by the British Counterintelligence. Bernhard prevented that man from being locked-up and charged by declaring him essential for the job of informing the Dutch Resistance in Eindhoven and Arnhem about the impending operation. The guy, instead, went and informed the Abwehr, resulting in the Wehrmacht learning about the operation and stopping the advance at Arnhem (where 10 years later Bernhard would triumphantly convene the first Bilderberger meeting).
Of course, we do not know today, who might be such a Bernhard. But we must take the possibility that among „Generals“ of the Resistance some Bernhards will have been implanted.
Therefore it can not be the most important thing to stop questions. Questions need to be asked. It is the answers which will be giving away who is „us“ and who is „them“.
If those who ask important questions are deemed CO per se, „we“ have a problem.
From what I can see you have named some items of where indeed answers have been given on questions which do not need repeating unless new evidence emerges.
However, I find it unfortunate that on your list of events and explanations the question of „spread“ and „mortality“ has been presented in a rather oversimplified way.
If „we“ agree that no government should have the right to restrict basic human rights on the grounds of assumptions which lack basic rationale, then the NYC questions which Jessica Hockett, Jonathan Engler, Martin Neal and others have raised should have received more attention amongst „ourselves“ and more support from „generals“ on „our side“.
This also goes for questions which Jonathan Couey has raised about potential use of agents which may have caused isolated events but which lack infectious potential.
This issue seems particular important, as JJ is questioning the potential of GOF on RNA viruses causing epidemics, let alone pandemics.
This question has not been properly discussed, but the warnings for „the big one to come“ which some „Generals“ on „our side“ are issuing do provide the rationale for an alleged „need for countermeasures“.
Therefore I find it quite essential for „us“ to be engaging a bit more in proper discussion about such scenarios. That scientists such as JJ should get the axe instead, seems very unfortunate against this backdrop.
To make it clear: I am not arguing pro or con any particular position.
But the call to „shut up and fall in line“ seems inappropriate to me.
I didn't see any call to „shut up and fall in line“.
In fact the subtitle is "Surely we can have a discussion among ourselves about certain things?" which I read as inviting people to talk.
"Can we get back to arguing about arguments and stop attacking people for holding those positions?" doesn't sound like „shut up and fall in line“ to me.
I did not say that Dr. Nass has posed that demand. But other "leaders" have, and some of those have been defended by Dr. Nass. So, I believe, indirectly her piece might have been an attempt to make requests from Jessica Hockett and JJ Couey go away. If that is not the case, I apologize, and would invite Dr. Nass to come out and support Jessica and JJ in their quests for clarification.
So why Meryl and her followers do not want to have a discussion over a lack of valid evidence of any alleged biological virus and contagious disease?