Our systems and institutions have been being lead by increasingly incompetent people who aren't adequately equipped to understand or operate them, and then we have dis-ease progression of these systems - where over time their state worsens and worsens. It’s obvious now to me after Trump got elected to bring out caring, intelligent, thoughtful and heartfelt entrepreneurs like Andrew Yang - who helped me understand the duopoly, the establishment, and how mainstream media and how industrial complexes influence the narrative via their advertising dollars. It leads to extremes, an out of balance system that’s fighting between one extreme with the other. I do love Yang’s core policy proposals as I believe they would bring balance back to the equation, two good examples being Democracy Dollars and Journalism Dollars. The first being a $100 voucher to give to every eligible voter every year to contribute to the politician of their choice - which would act to wash out or heavily counterweight the $4 billion every 4 year political cycle that industry lobbies politicians with, with ~$32 billion - a ratio of 8:1. Similarly, the second would be a voucher, let’s say of $50 per year for every adult to contribute to the journalist(s) of their choice - who they believe aligns best with their interests and ideally will do a good job investigating and reporting on issues - which then would be $16 billion per year, which at least would be a start to funding non-advertising revenue dependant news agencies, the pharmaceutical industry which spent nearly $7 billion advertising in the US alone in 2020. But Yang’s policy proposals are not what this post is ultimately about, and you can read his last two books if you want to know more: “The War On Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future”, and “Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy”.

How much of this suffering/death is from COVID, and how much is from the policies - arguably many of which have been unnecessary and excessive - which lead to heavy restrictions on freedoms, some arguably reasonable, others not so much? If we can't even have that conversation, thoroughly and in the mainstream, then we're completely lost. But please, downvote me to show you're happily, blindly toeing the line, that you're doing your part by suppressing the "anti-science" - when in fact discussion is critical the scientific process, to finding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - so help you God.
Making a blanket statement of "I trust doctors and science:" there are expert doctors and researchers who give a different, valid narrative, who have been actively suppressed during this whole pandemic - who are highly credentialed scientists, they are very logical, their logic is congruent, and they are very articulate/eloquent with their speech - and they cite data and well-done research - contrary to the hit pieces and smear campaigns out there.

If you trust science then you'd believe in the scientific method, which includes having full-open conversation. There were powerful preventative-proactive measures that we knew about 1.5+ years ago that could have been mass deployed, why didn't mass testing start 1.5+ years ago, etc? And more concerning yet is why hasn't the general population been educated on these things? Why isn’t all of society shocked at Fauci’s statement of “I am/represent science” - is it simply because the majority are poorly developed, have underdeveloped critical thinking and such? Are people just too stressed, unhealthy, too busy with working too much to then have energy or attention for more than copium entertainment (whether it’s entertainment they call news that’s masquerading as news vs. actual entertainment)?

One reason I believe is that Google's search results are also captured, and manipulated towards the mainstream narrative, and the general population doesn't understand these mechanisms. They think that when they do a Google search they're getting "the best" results and information (even though it's in a bubble for their own political tilt, it's captured both ways) - and then they feel like they've done their due diligence, and they've then been told/taught what the narrative response is to whatever it is they're looking up. Example: If you search for "vitamin D covid" you'll get a bunch of articles that claim that vitamin D’s benefit in viruses/COVID is debunked, you won't however find the long-form conversation between Bret Weinstein and two other researchers who focused on vitamin D and COVID/virus-related studies; my even mentioning his name will prompt many people manipulated by the effort to suppress/smear him, but I've not yet heard a single thing he's actually said that's incorrect; people try to change context often for what he says, as an evolutionary biologist he thinks through possibilities - but people will remove his "if then" statement to try to then claim he said "this is true!" when he really just said "if X is true then Y is likely true"; whether his suppression is due to purposeful malice or incompetence, the end result is the same of scientific method being suppressed and the discussion not reaching mainstream/general population.

Here's a 17 minute clip of the discussion on vitamin D research (with COVID outcomes) with Bret Weinstein, Gruff Davies, and Linda Benskin - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xfzsEc0CTo - where they not only outline the existing studies, but also debunk the poorly done one - pointing out the shenanigans [or incompetence, but if you find only 1 poorly done one out of 4 studies available - that's far less likely incompetence to me, especially as you'd want to pull from multiple studies to average them out anyway if you were to make the best informed decision] that the US health agencies only referenced the poorly done study, meanwhile ignoring the 3 other studies they talk about that were widely known about at the time; full 2-hour long discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LFkWiNP1wQ or on Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/episode/4BXJgl3LYVez6CrDTbkwOl?si=4... - who thank God or Goodness isn't suppressing the scientific method, the process of having open and free flowing discussion. Now are these researcher 100% correct? I don’t know, but where’s the apparatus that organizes all of this - instead of suppressing them - so that we pit expert against expert in real-time to argue their very specific points, so we can hear in real-time flaws in arguments or misinterpretations presented that may be exposed by the conversation? I know, from experience, people will start replying with the citations/articles of information countering anything/everything I’ve said here - but then where’s the apparatus that contains all of this information in a framework that’s easily navigable, so then I can see who of my trusted sources - people I believe to be competent and trustworthy and thorough with their methods - to see who else has already reviewed the link given, so then I can read what the responses are by experts or competent peers (who may not even be in that specific field but can expertly analyze research methedogoloy)? Did Bret Weinstein or his partner Heather, or Pierre Kory, or Robert Malone, or Peter McCullough, or other already give a thorough response - or are we all to endlessly be bombarded by quick pieces of information we all can copy/paste from from our respective bubbles, getting exhausted even thinking about keeping up with the potential onslaught of reactions from people - whether they’re ideological in nature or well-intentioned? I know everyone is doing their best, but we can’t find the truth, we can sort through and engage inefficiently like how we currently do.

[2/3]