What Does A Covid Reckoning Entail?

Here's my vision -- what's yours?

Mar 12, 2024

When I was younger, I had a habit of astounding my mother by finishing a book and immediately starting it over again. Maybe that IS strange, but I always thought knowing the ending of a book drastically changed the experience of reading it. Sure, you knew the answer to the big ‘whodunnit’ question or exactly how the hero saves the day, but (at least in the good stories) you also caught a ton of foreshadowing or character development that you may have missed the first time through. In this way, a re-read is ALMOST like reading a new book.

In much the same way, when we look back at the covid years, we now understand things we see that we didn’t understand at the time. We can spot the clues about who’s lying and trying to cover their ass. We know where to look to find the answers to questions that have (criminally) gone unanswered to this day. We can see how certain “exceptions” were made to normal procedures, which allowed the covid panic to take root. (Notice Fauci on stage completely ignoring distancing rules here!)

Yet other than resigning in disgrace after breaking her own Thanksgiving rules, nothing has happened to Deborah Birx — or really any other member of the covid crew.

This leads to the obvious question — what would a covid reckoning look like?

First of all, the public needs complete access to all emails — at all levels of government — surrounding covid, lockdowns, vaccinations and mandates, and censorship. We can piece together a lot of the picture by trudging through redacted emails, but we deserve to know exactly who knew what — and when they knew it.

As somebody who spent way too much time on this issue, I don’t believe the decisions that stoked panic across the country (and world) were an accident or simply a result of a lack of information. I believe that a thorough review of unredacted emails would uncover perhaps the greatest coverup in history — one that went so far as to censor the legal (and correct!) speech of Americans.

I suppose it’s POSSIBLE that all the ‘experts’ are just completely incompetent and not malicious — and if that’s what the evidence uncovers, I’ll be happy with the resignation of everybody involved instead of criminal charges.

Once we get the story from the unredacted emails and Slack messages and whatever else, it’s time for the hearings — and ones with teeth. If Fauci wants to say he doesn’t remember details about something, that’s ok — we’ll just grab his computers and notes and we’ll figure it out for him.

And I don’t think the panel/jury/board should be made up of people like me — they should be starting from a completely neutral place (if possible). But the research and prosecution teams? Damn right they should be run by people like me — people who are determined to get to the truth of the matter on ALL the big covid questions. Let Bill Rice dive into early spread and who knew it was occurring. Give Jessica Hockett access to NYC’s March data and let her go wild. Allow Jane Q. Public to review school closure emails in her kid’s district. We all have specific questions we want answered, and unleashing the motivated is the quickest way to get them.

Who knew the vaccine didn’t prevent transmission, and when did they know it? Let’s see ALL the communication. Who still decided to mandate the shots, even knowing the logic behind them (protect others) was a lie? The answers are out there, floating around on an email server somewhere — we’re just not allowed to see them.

Who decided to continue forward with lockdowns, even though the understanding at the time was that they simply spread out infections and didn’t prevent them? Who made the decision to ‘pivot’ to an effective zero-covid strategy, despite the obvious deficiencies in such a plan? And who decided that instead of listening to people who were ultimately proven correct, they should be banned or fired?

Clicking will take you to the article, not the tweet.

When Martin Kulldorff simply looked at the publicly available data and came to the conclusion that society would be better served trying to protect the weak and vulnerable — the only ones who REALLY had anything to fear from covid — Fauci and his crew leapt into action to denounce the Great Barrington Declaration. Yet they did this via back channels and subordinates, because the ringleaders couldn’t be involved — for one simple reason:

Yet still today when we try to get answers to the most basic covid questions, we are stonewalled. Here’s the CDC’s “response” to a FOIA request about the agency’s long-term myocarditis-after-vaccination study:

This looks like 148 red flags warning against vaccination.

Who made the decision to black out this entire study? Who made the decision to try to delay the release of vaccine data for 75 years? Who authorized government to run pseudo advertisements for the vaccine, without the standard warnings found on other pharmaceutical products? Why were wine stores open but AA meetings closed? The people deserve answers to these and hundreds (or thousands) of other covid-related questions.

I hate to use this phrase, but I believe the only time it’s applicable is when we’re dealing with government — if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear! So let’s see what the ‘experts’ were REALLY saying, and when they were saying it. Surely they aren’t covering up evidence the entire thing was BS, right?

THAT’S what a covid reckoning looks like to me — mostly just complete transparency and holding people accountable for their provable lies. In today’s America, that’s a radical idea.

Afraid of commitment? Buy me a coffee on Ko-fi — no subscription required!

Also now that I don’t have to worry about post limits, I can post a happy birthday message to Gbill7!