It used to be so easy. You’d watch an old Western as a kid, and see two cowboys standing face to face at high noon for a duel. One was wearing a white hat, the other was wearing a black hat. You knew who the good guy was. You knew who to root for.
Today in so-called “conspiracy theory” circles talk abounds of “white hats,” “black hats,” and even “grey hats.” He’s a “white hat,” someone will write, implying that he is someone who can be trusted. A black hat, of course, is someone evil, and a grey hat is someone who–like most all of humanity since the dawn of time–has done both good and evil. Such references, at least, bear some credibility because they make presumptions based on one’s actions, rather than a title, position, or pedigree. You never hear anyone in these conversations say, “He’s a white hat because he is the Attorney General,” or “She’s a white hat because she went to Harvard.”
In the context of the health freedom movement, however, one of our greatest challenges is conveying to those outside of our movement (those whose eyes have not yet been opened to the rampant fraud and corruption in the dealings between the pharmaceutical industry, government, and mainstream media) that you can’t trust a person on the basis of his position, or by the letters after his name–in other words, on the basis of the “hat” he wears. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen so-called journalists quote the director of the CDC, or some other pharma-shill MD, as saying, “vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective,” or, “vaccine injury is one in a million.” The problem with these statements isn’t just that they are so blatantly false, it’s that they are never, ever, backed by a even a passing reference to a shred of supporting evidence. The “journalist” never asks the most obvious follow-up question that one would expect of someone who is truly interested in the pursuit of truth, rather than one who is merely a puppet of her pharma advertising overlords: “What evidence do you have for that statement?” Instead they are given a pass, and their words are allowed to pass for gospel merely on the strength of their credentials.
When will we learn that we must put our trust in the authority of the evidence, rather than the authority of the person? How many times have you heard people who oppose health freedom simply dismiss our concerns about vaccinations with the patronizing and vapid declaration, “I believe science”? The phrase “science is real” has even become a hallmark of virtue-signaling t-shirts, flags, and lawn signs. Its predecessor, “the science is settled,” is still more idiotic. Anyone who understands anything about science knows that science is never settled, and certainly not with regard to something like vaccines, that are not double-blind placebo safety tested before FDA approval, and whose recipients are not studied against a control group after they are rushed to market. But somehow it has become fashionable among crowds of persons who supposedly value science above all else to blindly accept unsupported proclamations about science, and to ignore mountains of peer-reviewed studies to the contrary.
It doesn’t take long to realize that we aren’t having a debate about the science of vaccines. We aren’t debating the authority of the evidence. We are debating the authority of the person. The most ingenious thing the pharmaceutical industry ever did was purchase the majority of the advertising for every network and cable news program. With that grand gesture, the media became little more than a pharmaceutical industry spokesperson, functioning as its mouthpiece of propaganda. The media doesn’t report “science.” Where was the mainstream media when on November 22, 2020 Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. James Lyons-Weiler published, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the first-ever study of health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children in Dr. Thomas’s pediatric practice? Not a single outlet reported the results of the study, or that it had even been conducted and published. Not one article was written informing the public that “zero of the 561 unvaccinated patients in the study had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 0.063% of the (partially and fully) vaccinated,” or that “the overall rate of autism spectrum disorder (0.84%) in the cohort is half that of the US national rate (1.69%).” No television news broadcast dared declare the fact that the study’s “data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.” https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674
Instead, just 11 days after the study was published, the Oregon Medical Board suspended Dr. Thomas’s medical license, ostensibly for reasons unrelated to the study. The Board alleged that Dr. Thomas’s recommendations to his patients resulted in children developing vaccine-preventable illnesses, and “determined from the evidence available at this time that Licensee’s continued practice of medicine would pose an immediate danger to the public and to his patients,” according to the order of emergency suspension.
It is abundantly clear that the suspension is, in fact, just yet another example of the radical cancel culture that now dominates nearly every aspect of American society, from the mainstream media, to politics, to medicine, and beyond. The Oregon Medical Board is punishing Dr. Thomas for his speech, and attempting to silence him. The message is clear: question our edicts, and you will pay; conduct research that reveals anything other than the mainstream narrative about vaccines, and you will never work again. This has nothing to do with medicine or public health. This is nothing other than totalitarianism. (If you’d like to support Dr. Thomas in fighting this medical tyranny, you can do so here.)
The bottom line is this: there is nothing telling in the person, there is nothing telling in a title, there is nothing telling in the “hat” that someone wears. Only when people stop believing that the Directors of the CDC or FDA are the “white hats”, and anyone who questions them are the “black hats”, will we ever move past this divide. Trust the authority of the evidence, not of the person. I propose that we adopt that as our mantra moving forward.