I Have a Few Questions

What would you do?

If you were a person in a position of authority like a Governor, a President, a Mayor, or even a school board chairman and you actually wanted to solve the virus problem, what would you do? Would you do things differently than what those people are doing?

The key part of the question is the part about actually wanting to solve the problem. I am starting to have my doubts.

A bit later we can speculate about what problems, and whose problems, those leaders are trying to solve. But for now let’s focus on the virus problem.

If the people in charge were actually trying, wouldn’t they be open to working together with everyone to deal with a problem that everyone is facing? Wouldn’t that be the fundamental approach?

It seems to me that a person who actually wanted to do that would never dismiss, much less block, a possible solution based on who suggested it, would they? They would welcome all the ideas. Wouldn’t you?

Would you reject certain medications and treatments out of hand? Medications like Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and others? Or would you make funds available to do numerous, rigorous, independent clinical studies on the efficacy of such medications for the treatment of the disease?

Surely in a country that is creating TRILLIONS of dollars to hand over to corporations, a few million more to test out some suggestions with actual scientific rigor should be a no brainer.

Shouldn’t a person who is actually trying to solve the problem be willing to explore all options openly and answer any questions concerning their policies? Policies on face masks, social distancing, business closings and the like? Shouldn’t any policy be explained and examined in scientific detail without rancor or playing political grab ass?

Wouldn’t you refer to actual science instead of, or at least in addition to, “experts” opinions? Should those expert opinions be given without explanation or defense? Shouldn’t the experts be willing to show and share their work if they are actually trying to solve the problem? Or would you just issue edicts and denigrate those who question you with accusations of “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories?”

Would you try to calm people down so they could decide rationally what to do about the problem or would you purposely ramp up the fear under the theory that people are too stupid to understand what’s good for them?

It seems to me that serious people who actually want to help would be anxious to go on C-Span or public television to explain and discuss the different approaches and the science and data that accompany them. Not once, but often. Wouldn’t real news organizations be demanding that instead of censoring or denigrating it?

If you actually wanted to be helpful would you embrace the opportunity to contemplate any alternative ideas or would you censor them?

Now that we are considering those questions it’s time to consider what problems the politicians and “leaders” are trying to solve. Is it possible they are not the same ones we want solved, but rather their own problems? I would speculate that their main problem is how to control everything without explaining or getting the permission and consent from the people they supposedly represent. Their other problem is how to look like a hero and garner votes while doing that. You may have alternate speculations to mine.

I suggest that we reject anyone who is not enthusiastically willing to explain their decisions and how they reached their conclusions in detail and without rancor. A further suggestion is that we reject them as leaders next time we have a say. Namely at election time. They should be rejected for these reasons regardless of their party affiliation. Bad approaches were used by politicians from both parties.

So in the end the questions remain; What would you do? What approach would you take? Are the current leaders actually trying to help? Finally, shouldn’t we approach all problems and questions the same way if we are actually trying to help?

Perhaps “man made global climate change” could be addressed by people who actually want to identify and solve problems. But that’s for a different day.

I’ll wrap up by recommending a video I saw on social media that (as of right now) has yet to be censored. I saw it after I wrote the first draft of this piece. It is a video of testimony given before the Texas Senate HHS Committee by Dr Peter McCullough. He is a physician of impeccable credentials, as the video will attest.

This article will not be going viral but I hope you consider sharing it and subscribing to this newsletter. It’s the first time I have published Fundamental Things on Substack. In the mean time, after watching the video testimony I hope you will help make the video go viral. It’s the best one I have yet seen on the topic.