Has the GBC Strategic Planning Team just promoted FAKE over Fact?
By Kaunteya Das
On Wednesday, May 13, Kaunteya Das, writing on behalf of the GBC Strategic Planning Team (GBC SPT), wrote an article Did Someone Send You the ‘Plandemic” video? asserting several things that will be dissected and analyzed here.
Firstly, why is it important to do this?
In ‘Sastra we are advised to seek out a genuine spiritual master, one who exemplifies the transcendental qualities delineated by Krishna and the Acaryas, and who is a tattva darsini, in fact. In other words, one who has seen Krishna (the absolute truth) face to face, who is a very dear and intimate associate of Krishna.
Such a radha-priya-sakhi we are meant to serve with total humility, enquire from submissively and hear from with rapt attention. It is a process of receiving information, knowledge, from the top down.
As blind following is condemned, we are meant to thoroughly observe, listen attentively, and beg Krishna within our heart, so that we may know for certain that such a guru is qualified. If we are genuinely sincere in our desire to understand the absolute truth, then Krishna will not cheat us. If we are duplicitous and have other agendas, then we will be cheated.
So, in regard of receiving top-down knowledge, this is only recommended when we are hearing from one who is thoroughly honest, one who is free from nescience and the conditioned senses’ defects.
What we see in the world today is that corporate-controlled mainstream media are presenting themselves as being thoroughly honest and that the people should receive their information, on each and every subject, via their sources.
What we can also see is that when the ISKCON bureaucracy put forth statements as Kaunteya Das has in his article, asserting what is truth and what isn’t, they are also taking this top-down approach, posing as an authority. Other examples of such are with the ISKCON bureaucracy informing the members as to who and who is not qualified to act as a guru. We can see that this process is fallible and time and time again it is proven that their estimation of who and who isn’t qualified is simply nescient conjecture.
Everyone is responsible for their own lives, and if such individuals have yet to take full responsibility for such it is likely that they will be cheated by those who are so willing to do their thinking for them.
Now, I will go through this article as an exercise, sentence by sentence (each numbered), as an example of how one can dig a little deeper when one is faced with assertions such as those presented by the GBC SPT and we should be able to arrive at a deeper understanding of how such propaganda works:
- 1. We at the GBC Strategic Planning Team take our service to the ISKCON Vaisnava community seriously.
The assertion here is that the GBC SPT exists to serve the ISKCON Vaisnava community. We do not have time here to analyze whether this is selfless service, how they are serving, the quality of such service and if they are serving Godhead or nescience.
- 2. We do our best to post information that is relevant, informative, inspiring and in line with our teachings.
Relevant to who? Informative to who? Inspiring to who? And in line with what teachings?
Transcendental knowledge is transferred through aural reception from the lips of one who is genuinely transcendentally situated. So, is what is deemed relevant, informative, inspiring, those things that are relevant et al to one who is transcendentally situated, or one genuinely desirous of such transcendental experience, or is it simply relevant et al to the tainted agendas of conditioned souls comfortable in their ecclesiastical positions?
Are ‘our teachings’ the transcendentally realized expression of Bhagavata dharma or the tainted, filtered interpretations of such?
- 3. We hope to help with keeping our devotees safe, healthy and in good consciousness.
We can learn a great deal by the words that are chosen. Let’s look at this snippet: ‘our devotees”. So, the GBC SPT considers that the ISCKON Vaishnava community are their devotees; and they want their devotees to be safe, healthy, and in good consciousness.
Such rhetoric is rather similar to that used by the governments when discussing the population. They use terminology like ‘we are locking our citizens in their homes for their safety and health…’
In other words, such bureaucracies claim false proprietorship over those who they believe are serving their positions and then create paradigms around what they consider to be safe, healthy, and good. These are not absolute positions, they are relative nescient positions posing as absolute and those who have handed the responsibility for their thinking over to such nescient paradigms will suffer the results.
- 4. As far as health, we see that most devotees are taking the recommended precautions surrounding the coronavirus seriously.
What recommended precautions are they? The recommendations of the WHO? The recommendations of nescient governments?
If such recommendations are in fact harmful for the health of the living organism and not in line with the Vedas (Ayurveda for example) then this statement may reflect a great deal about the critical thinking abilities of most ‘devotees’. Furthermore, is the GBC SPT referring to ‘their devotees’, or to those pure and perfect souls who are genuinely and wonderfully transcendentally situated in unceasing service to the resplendent and otherworldly divine couple, Sri Sri Radha-Krishna?
- 5. We are also aware that some devotees have less faith in how medical professionals and governments are presenting the pandemic; they prefer alternative views found on the internet.
By now you should be able to see how such analysis reveals so much about the mentality of the author. This sentence exposes a great deal as to where the GBC SPT place their faith.
‘Some devotees have less faith’, inferring that most ‘devotees’ have faith in the kali yuga ‘medical professionals’ and governments, therefore faith in the establishment’s presentation of ‘the pandemic’. There is no questioning here, by the author as to the validity of such faith, whether the pandemic is genuine or just another hyped flu, etc…
Once again are we to infer that the GBC SPT is not referring to transcendentally situated servants of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but to their devotees; devotees of the GBC SPT; or when they say ‘some devotees’, who exactly are they referring to?
Such devotees who do not have faith in so-called medical professionals and governments prefer ‘alternative views’ found on the internet.
Alternative to what?
Alternative to the position taken by the GBC SPT?
Alternative to the mainstream news channels?
Alternative to the World Health Organisation?
Alternative to Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates?
Alternative to the accepted popular narrative that is accepted by countless millions of bipeds?
- 6. For the most part, we don’t get too involved in commenting on the ideas floating around.
‘Ideas floating around’. Yes, it is a manner of speech, but what is the GBC STP inferring here? Those ideas just float around or that ideas that are alternative to the mainstream media and government just float around, whereas mainstream media and government ideas are solid and established?
- 7. We understand that conditioned souls have imperfect senses, are subject to illusion, make mistakes, and have a cheating propensity. Those realities apply to all.
Does the GBC STP understand this because they have read it in a book and dogmatically regurgitate it, or is it experientially understood because it is an axiomatic truth?
If such realities apply to all (which is contestable) then they must apply to the GBC STP, the medical professionals, the government, the authors of the articles posing as evidence presented by the GBC STP herein, the alternative views and the ideas floating around out there, somewhere.
In the logic put forth by the GBC STP we may now conclude that it is possible, and probably likely, that its members are cheating their devotees and the readers of the article due to their sensory defects.
Those who have heard from a bonafide spiritual master (referring to the substantial and not the rubber-stamped form), understand that the four defects of conditioned souls are not just a blanket covering of precise and exact depth, width and breadth of each and every conditioned soul, but relative depth et al coverings varying with the evolution of consciousness in the living entity. In other words, to use the ‘four defects’ argument as presented here one may conclude that suras and asuras alike are equal in their propensity to make mistakes and cheat others. Such philosophies may be deemed a form of mayavadism.
Such a principle (‘realities’) does not apply to all in the same manner and do not apply to all. The liberated souls, the tattva darsinis, are free from such defects. Better for the GBC SPT to place their faith in those pure and perfect souls and not into mundane slander posing as informed and impartial news articles.
- 8. Beyond that, we subscribe to the ‘better safe than sorry’ pragmatic approach to this issue.
Firstly, I have to say, ‘self-praise is no praise at all’.
Is such an approach inferring that it is better to be safe than sorry by accepting as authority the conditioned souls in mainstream media and government’s advice, or it is better to be safe than sorry and investigate the alternative views (on the internet) that question the mainstream narrative?
Another way of putting it is, are you accepting the propaganda of well-heeled individuals who own and control mainstream media and whose lobbying power and other systems permeate governments (and may actually be the government) to be the better and safe option; as opposed to the less well-heeled investigative journalists who share alternative views; or the doctors, scientists and others who do not agree with the mainstream narrative, to be the worse or sorry option?
This is important because the ‘devotees’ of the GBC SPT must be clear on what is being stated in this article.
One may infer, thus far into the article, that the defective GBC SPT support and publish the views of the equally defective mainstream media and governments.
- 9. Srila Prabhupada often signed his letters, “Hope this meets you in good health.” We pray that devotees will continue to fulfill that hope of Srila Prabhupada’s.
Here the GBC SPT is starting to build their argument by quoting a snippet from ‘Srila Prabhupada who promoted the hope of good health in his disciples.
The inference so far alluded to is that good health is being equated to the ‘safe’ option of listening to mainstream medical health professionals which is portrayed through mainstream media and being enforced, in many cases with violent and horrific consequences, by government police forces.
If one agrees with such an inference, then what the GBC SPT is alluding to is that ‘Srila Prabhupada would want you to follow the orders of the nescient governments.
Since we are on the topic of ‘Srila Prabhupada’s letters here is another snippet from a letter to Govardhan Das, 8 May 1973:
‘Please preach this Krishna Consciousness very strongly so that we may give people real light for seeing the way out of the darkness of Kali Yuga.
The modern scientists are confusing everyone with their false propaganda and it is our duty to expose them and kill the demoniac tendency to forget Krishna.
Hoping this meets you in good health.
Your ever well wisher,
A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami’
Now, is it possible that Prabhupada’s use and understanding of what is good health and any inference thereof, varies from what the GBC SPT is inferring?
I assert that the difference is so vast that the teachings of A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada and the genuine realization thereof are different realms apart from the GBC SPT teachings they refer to as ‘our teachings’ in the first paragraph of the article. i.e. the former being from Goloka Vrindavan and the latter being the mundane conceptions of such transcendental teachings espoused from nescient viewpoints.
- 10. It is in that mood that we present these concerns specifically about the ‘’Plandemic” video (and similar presentations) that is currently being promoted by some ISKCON devotees – including senior spiritual guides.
So, here the real intention of the GBC SPT is made clear. They want to set the record straight and bring all ISKCON devotees, including senior spiritual guides, into line with their conditioned perspective under the guise of ‘that mood’ of ‘Srila Prabhupada’s. Perhaps we are seeing the axiomatic exposé of the four defects being presented before our eyes by the GBC SPT.
- 11. Unfortunately, the “Plandemic” video contains many unproven claims and factual errors that can lead someone to take a less-than-cautious approach.
So, the assertion has been made that the video contains unproven claims and factual errors.
A second assertion is that such a video can lead someone to take a less-than-cautious approach.
We are assuming that the GBC SPT is referring to the coronavirus (covid-19) and the approach to it promoted through mainstream media and governmental departments; and that this video can make one not take as seriously such propaganda and totalitarian orders.
Now we await the evidence presented by the GBC SPT to arrive at such a proclamation, so as to condemn the testimony of one Judy Mikovits Ph.D. as being unproven claims and factual errors.
Before that we should look at the terminology:
‘Unproven claims’ – Generally when one is making an accusation through personal eyewitness testimony it is always ‘unproven’ to anyone who is not privy as an eyewitness, or not privy to a substantial amount of evidence equating to a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact that something may be an unproven claim to some does not make it untrue. The two are not equivalent. When Lucy returned through the closet from Narnia her claim was unproven, not unproven to her, but to her brothers and sister. Krishna, being the supreme absolute personality of godhead, the supreme autocrat, maybe an unproven claim to those ignorant of Him. There is naturally a process by which anyone may come to understand whether a claim is true or not, and even in the courts the terminology used to establish the truth, is beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not that they can be 100% certain because such parties adjudicating are reliant on empirical evidence, and testimony, after the fact.
In the same example, it is common that opposing parties may lie, cheat and fabricate material posing as evidence to avoid the consequences of certain actions under law or to ensure certain actions under the law are imposed on their enemies.
In this light, then the so-called evidence being presented below is already on very shaky ground.
In regard to the assertion that the video contains factual errors, we will need to analyze the evidence provided by the GBC SPT to assert their claims and see whether such evidence proves such an assertion beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot, then the assertion made by the GBC SPT must be rejected.
We only hope that the GBC SPT list the specific claims that contain factual errors each of those alleged claims leads to a less than cautious approach.
We also hope that they delineate exactly what they mean by a less than cautious approach. When making such a relative statement context is required. i.e Less than cautious compared to what?
We will not go into why the GBC SPT considers it unfortunate that such a video allegedly contains many unproven claims and factual errors.
- 12. There is a need to promote critical thinking and encourage ISKCON members to be discerning when dealing with potentially fallacious content.
Oh boy! Here is a can of worms if I’ve ever seen one.
One may say that there is a need to promote critical thinking and encourage everyone to be discerning, considering everything in this world is potentially fallacious content.
Many questions arise from this statement made by the GBC SPT.
Why is such a statement being made now, specifically in relation to a video presenting the personal testimony of a doctor against Dr. Anthony Fauci? I mean there are countless testimonies, documents, and other evidence (admissible and inadmissible) against Dr. Anthony Fauci, his links to various organizations, research, etc…that question his honesty, his agenda, and his role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Such information and other information also implicate Bill Gates, the WHO, the CDC and many other organizations such as government bodies, media organizations, educational institutions, research institutions, corporate interests etc…in an alleged conspiracy to take advantage of far-reaching influences and profit, not just from this pandemic, but many other pandemics, by the spread of false information, counter-arguments, pseudo-science, fallacious logic and unproven, dangerous ‘cures’ at the expense of that which may be genuinely beneficial to the living organisms health.
Why does the GBC SPT see themselves fit to weigh in on such a debate?
- 13. Therefore, here we share three articles addressing the faults in the “Plandemic” video:
This is where we will get to see whether the GBC SPT is taking its own advice and using critical thinking and whether they are discerning.
They are using, as evidence, articles from the internet.
We are left to wonder whether such articles are alternative views taken from the internet and/or just ideas floating around, or whether they represent the ‘medical professionals’ and ‘governments’ views that they do not consider as being alternative?
An interesting point to be raised here regarding this is the fallacious inference that medical professionals cannot have alternative views. As an example, just recently two doctors, Dan Erikson and Artin Massihi were interviewed by a television station. These doctors are said to be frontline doctors and they presented their data acquired over numerous facilities and many COVID patients they manage in the southern area of California. They are medical professionals and their data suggested that the government should take a stepped-down approach to reducing the lockdown measures. The interview was posted on youtube and later banned by youtube claiming it was against their community guidelines, which was later clarified by the youtube CEO as being anything that goes against the WHO narrative. She also used, as an example, anyone recommending things like vitamin C and turmeric as being beneficial in fighting COVID-19 as ‘false information’.
So, although these doctors provided testimony based on frontline data and years of medical experience because it is not in line with the agenda of the WHO it has been banned off social media platforms and condemned by many in the mainstream media. This gives some perspective on how medical professionals with accurate data may be deemed ‘alternative sources’. This is just one example of countless medical professionals’ testimonies contradicting the WHO data, the WHO agenda, and the agenda many governments have fully endorsed to the point of censoring or attempting to discredit anything that goes against such an agenda.
This simply disproves the inference that medical professionals do not have alternate and contradictory views. It shows, though, that alternate simply means that which questions the WHO which can be accurately equated to the mainstream views and the propaganda of many news outlets, educational and scientific institutional journals and articles, and government outlets.
We can understand from the GBC SPT statement earlier, that such articles as presented as evidence below are written by those with the four conditioned defects and contain potentially fallacious content. Despite this the GBC SPT wishes to use such articles to disprove a video testimony floating around the internet; and all this for their devotee’s safety, health, and as a lesson in critical thinking. Hmmm…
- 14. If I may share a personal anecdote; I was, not so many years ago, a board director of a public media company. This company owned several magazines and an online news site. It also controlled other sites not directly listed as being associated with the parent company.
Whilst many articles were just articles that fit within the readers’ interests with various writers involved, nearly every issue of every magazine contained views promoted by the major shareholders through their representatives on the board. None of it was impartial, everything had an agenda.
A quote from ‘Srila Prabhupada’s sannyasa guru may shed some light on the nature of this world we live in:
From Srila BhaktiPrajnana Kesava Maharaja’s book, ‘Beyond Nirvana’.
“An objective observation of the modern global society reveals that the symptoms of Kali-yuga are abundantly evident. It is a nefarious age of deception and trickery, feint and counter-feint, misinformation, and disorganization. Opportunistic politicians controlled by zealous financial magnates covertly and craftily engineer public opinion by manipulation of the media in a relentless pursuit of ephemeral visions of illusory power rooted in the bodily concepts of ‘I’ and ‘mine’.
These personalities and their respective ideologies are without a doubt the true deputed agents of Mäyävädism.”
Now let’s investigate the sources shared here as evidence by the GBC SPT. The purpose of such investigation is not to support Judy Mikovit’s claim but to question the motives and agendas of the information shared here, posing as evidence, that leads the GBC SPT, who are claiming they only wish to promote discernment and critical thinking, to ineptly enter such a debate. If these sources have undisclosed conflicts of interest, they may be rejected. If reasonable doubts arise from them then they may be rejected.
When it comes to critical thinking and discernment, such must be extended beyond what may just make us feel comfortable or support our current position. It must extend completely, therefore it must extend to the very ‘evidence’ we may use to brazenly infer that we, ourselves, are using critical thinking. If the possibility exists that Judy Mikovits has personal agendas that may lead her to lie and attempt to deceive, it stands to reason that those who stand accused may also lie and attempt to deceive to protect their positions within society.
When it comes to such allegations that Mikovit’s discusses, implicating people in very high positions of authority, linked to people with billions of dollars at their disposal, who are known to be in cahoots with other people with billions of dollars at their disposal, is it not possible that some of those resources could be used to push forward information that benefits their agendas, regardless of its authenticity? After all, if you tell a lie enough times others may believe it.
Whilst ‘conspiracy theory’ has been made to be a derogatory term, isn’t it a rather valid position to hold in a world of conditioned souls, where many are overt propagators of nescience; and such persons (‘Srila Prabhupada defined the ruling elite as asuras, rakshasas, demoniac, rascals etc…) controlling substantial resources will certainly collude and conspire together to maintain and extend their relative powerful positions? Wouldn’t it be naïve and even ignorant not to entertain such possibilities, what to speak of openly decry them? If small interests want to control their own propaganda it stands to reason that very large and powerful interests would want to control their own major propaganda. In studying such avenues of propaganda and control used throughout history by the asuras one can see that it is not limited to a newspaper or two. Far from it. It may extend to every element of society including but not limited to all the established educational, medical, governmental, monetary, military, scientific, and media establishments.
As one example, to quote Lenin, “Give me a child for 8 years and I’ll make him a Bolshevik for life’.
Or as stated by Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State”.
In light of such historical examples, is it not the rational, discerning, and properly discriminating approach to question the State’s narrative and search for alternative views outside the State’s propaganda?
The influence that mass propaganda exerts through such a vast network of avenues on the conditioned living entity, from birth to death, is almost all-pervasive. Without the influence of alternative information, or alternative propaganda or media, such an influenced living entity is bound to remain deceived by the narrative and paradigms set by those persons who have the necessary resources to control and maintain such influence.
This is similar to the all-pervasive influence of Maya’s propaganda, through the gunas, on the living entity. If it were not for the causeless mercy of Krishna and His representatives descending into the material world to disseminate the propaganda of the spiritual domain then the living entity would perpetually remain deceived.
My assertion is that the refusal or inability to entertain conspiracy theories, or be open to an alternate point of view, is not a symptom of discernment or critical thinking; but, a symptom of one completely convinced of their current worldview, however narrow, nescient or deceptive it may be.
- 15. The first article:https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852451652/seen-plandemic-we-take-a-close-look-at-the-viral-conspiracy-video-s-claims
It is published by NPR.
NPR claims to be an independent, nonprofit media organization. They also have a membership of separately licensed and public (Government) radio stations across the USA.
The NPR does not list specifically who provides their funding, but a great deal comes from individuals, corporations, colleges and universities, foundations, and the government. They are not a small investigative journalist Organisation. They claim to have 52 million weekly audiences across their platforms.
So, it is an article being written by a paid journo following the editorial dictates of his immediate boss and so on and so forth.
The author’s first inclusions of alleged evidence are aimed at discrediting some of what Judy Mikovits says in order to discredit her entire testimony in the minds of the undiscerning reader simply because her testimony has some alleged factual errors. This does not, in and of itself, disprove the totality or even those portions of such testimony. It may bring them into question but so should the conflicts of interest of the article’s sources I will share below.
The retracted article was published on science.sciencemag.org which is published by AAAS (more on them later).
The next link is simply to the NIH site. Mikovits, along with many other testimonies, is questioning the integrity of the NIH.
Such quoting of sources could be compared to a hen complaining about a fox outside the hen house conspiring to eat her, and the fox simply uses other foxes’ testimony to discredit the hen.
This you will see right throughout the articles which the GBC SPT are using to establish themselves as discerning, critical thinking, looking out for their devotee’s health and safety.
The third link just goes to another NPR article. It can be seen from such articles that a pattern of attempting to discredit anything contrary to the established and widely promoted narrative is in effect. The reason I state that there is a pattern pushing a certain agenda is that information contradicting such is not considered in the article. The articles are really ‘he said, she said’ articles aimed at promoting one side of the argument over the other. In other words, they are not demonstrating partiality to both sides; but by just sharing some names with letters after them the undiscerning are happy to accept it and go on with their lives under their accepted beliefs. Nothing the articles share substantiates the honesty and truth of the article’s authors and sources.
The fallacy that is questioned by critical thinkers is the fallacy that the ‘establishment’ of science and medicine is the authority and the truth of science and medicine. It is difficult for conditioned living entities, who are hoping against hope that nescient concepts suggesting that this world is their real home and can provide for all their heartfelt wishes are real and good and true and that those propounding such nescience have their best wishes at heart and will take of care of them, to accept any suggestion that such an establishment is anything but good and true.
The very fact that the GBC STP has weighed in on this debate, with a very poorly constructed argument, indicates that the GBC STP, themselves, are entertaining the notion that the nescient establishment of science and medicine is, in some way or other, an authorized establishment. I would question such an assertion and question the very authority of the individuals of the GBC STP in claiming such considering the obvious contradiction to the teachings of ‘Srila Prabhupada.
The next link is just to the retraction on science.sciencemag (AAAS), made by sciencemag.
The next link is just to the institute where Mikovits allegedly worked.
The next link is to KRNV news (NBC affiliated news station) about allegations against Mikovits by the University of Nevada and that she turned herself into the University police.
Note NBC is owned by NBC Universal and is a subsidiary of Comcast. These are massive media conglomerates, which goes back to previous points that there are definitive possibilities that mass controlled propaganda may be a fact.
The next link is to the Chicago Tribune article contradicting Mikovit’s testimony and more discrediting of her retrovirus research.
Even though she allegedly turned herself in, her claim is that she is baffled at the criminal charges filed against her. It is likely that she turned herself in simply because she was aware of a warrant for her arrest based on the allegations against her.
The criminal charges were later dropped, indicating that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to continue a case against her. So, despite the articles cited, aiming at discrediting Mikovits, the criminal case was dropped, meaning that they had insufficient evidence even to try her.
The next link goes back to sciencemag (AAAS) claiming that where she worked won a default judgment in a civil case against her, yet the article does not state that at all. It mentions that criminal charges were dropped and that she is still defending the civil case which took ‘several bizarre twists’ with a judge removing himself from the case because he had received campaign donations from the criminal Harvey Whittemore who was jailed for making illegal campaign contributions to a federal officer. There were also issues with witnesses. No mention of any default judgment being awarded against Mikovits.
The next link is simply hearsay.
The next link claiming an ‘email to Science Insider’ is simply linking to the same article above claiming default judgment against her. That is twice this journalist links to supposed evidence that does not exist in the hyperlinked articles. Such are symptoms of a hatchet job article; In other words, a top-down order came to discredit Mikovits because of her testimony going viral and some lazy journalists, knowing their undiscerning readers, simply botch up a half-arsed attempt to present something credible that gullible readers will buy.
The next is a link to snopes which provides nothing of use. This kind of journalism makes an actual critical thinker laugh. Whilst on one level it may be that Judy Mikovits was (wrongfully) jailed for allegedly stealing equipment, even though the charges were dropped, and not for discovering a deadly virus delivered through vaccines; it does not discount the possibility, if her own testimony is accurate, that the motivation to have her criminally prosecuted is that she did find something the institute did not want to become public, such as a deadly virus delivered through vaccines. This link is neither here nor there as no further information is provided on the article nor the validity of the article and its claims.
The journalist then goes on to support the assertions that government researchers have collected millions of dollars in royalties for experimental treatments without disclosure to the patients. This in and of itself raises massive alarm bells of conflicts of interest among researchers, and even if Judy Mikovits is making her story up, the accusation itself, to a large degree, has every possibility of being accurate.
The journalist quotes someone else quoting Fauci donated the entire amount to charity.
This point right here gets me. If journalists, such as the author of this article, are actually interested in the truth, rather than writing on editorial directives, wouldn’t their energy be better spent investigating Anthony Fauci and the mass amount of alleged corruption against him and his buddies? I mean, wouldn’t it have more public value to ascertain if one of the main people behind information that has led to the global lockdown, and immense suffering caused, not by a virus, but by the draconian measures taken by governments on his advice if what is being alleged against him is in fact true?
Instead of mainstream media and the GBC STP questioning this, they are all busy trying to discredit one avenue of allegation against Fauci and co. simply because it had significant exposure. A critical thinker, with actual discernment, must question such things and not just sidle along with the official narrative simply because it is accepted by the vox populi. It is a logical fallacy that just because the mass of people believes something to be true deduces it must be true.
It goes on, and it isn’t just Mikovits claiming that doctors and hospitals are being incentivized. Doctors, themselves, in many hospitals are making such claims. The author admits that a premium is being tacked onto Medicare by the Corona Virus Aid Relief and Economic Security act. Isn’t that incentivization?
This whole notion of ‘fact-checking’ is hysterical. From deeper analysis many so-called ‘fact checks’ are just mainstream news journos countering with a poorly researched article or propaganda, containing a few quotes, usually skirting the greater issues, aimed at discrediting the person making the allegations against the establishment. The establishment is the government, their medical institutions, and the corporations that fund it all.
Fact-Checking, in the mainstream, is no different than having the fox guard the henhouse.
Mikovits is not alone in the medical world stating that the coronavirus is not naturally occurring. The journalist makes the same silly assertion used in a USA Today article (fact-checkers) stating that ‘there is no publicly available evidence’. What do they mean by publicly available evidence? These journos probably wouldn’t know what evidence was if it smacked them in the face. What they mean to say is that there is no publicly available evidence because it does not fit the establishment’s narrative and we can only write what fits under our editor’s orders. Once again the evidence is something that must be verified, not just published; and verified by scrupulous persons. How can any such unscrupulous persons discuss evidence?
This is almost the crux of the issue and why the GBC SPT’s weigh in on this is borderline ridiculous. They are quoting news articles whose affiliations are questionable and will be revealed even more to be questionable, and they are calling this ‘evidence’. The fact that there is significant testimony to support Dr. Mikovit’s assertion regarding COVID-19 that is publicly accessible (albeit censored by google, youtube and Facebook) reveals that these journalists are lying. Those who are actually critical thinkers and have an interest in such can and have availed themselves of such publicly available evidence and testimony.
Mikovits is discussing links between certain Bill Gates-funded organizations and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Once again, the journo uses the same bullsh*t argument of no publicly available evidence, even though there is publicly available testimony and documents to share such links if one cares to look outside the conglomerate of foxes guarding hen houses.
The journo fails to mention that the cooperation between the US funding of the Wuhan Laboratories is under federal investigation as announced by the US President some weeks back, as allegations have been made against Dr. Fauci (yes the same Fauci as Mikovits is testifying against) breaking multiple laws in distributing funds ($300 million-plus) to the Wuhan labs for coronavirus research under the Obama administration.
The rest of the article is just more opinions by the author and appears to support the pro-vaccination cause that denies any and all allegations, including potentially millions of personal testimony from parents, with dead or chronically ill children, who testify against the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
There are millions testifying against the safety and efficacy of many modern medicines like vaccines, just as there are millions that support them (perhaps they are the lucky ones.)
It is also obvious for any who aren’t clouded in a shroud of illusion that a common denominator, an agenda if you will, is portrayed throughout mainstream media channels that contradict millions of people’s experiences in this world. Such mainstream media is also going to great lengths to censor information that they claim to be ‘false’ and only promote what they ‘claim’ to be true. Anything that questions or sheds light on the fact that they are simply promoting a narrative of dangerous propaganda on behalf of the few that own and control the conglomerates that own most media channels, are shot down as misinformation mongers, fake news, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and any other number of illogical fallacies.
If a journalist, taking a moral and ethical check, decides that he would like to investigate facts outside the purview of the conglomerate’s editorial dictates, then immediately he is cast as ‘alternative’ and not creditable. This applies to the medical, research, governmental departments, etc… Any whistleblower is met with condemnation and genuine journalists are made out to be criminals.
The point is that those who cannot entertain the possibilities and probabilities of such testimony as Mikovits being at least in part true are more likely to be lacking in critical thinking and discernment than those who simply aim to dismiss it with conjecture and biased journalism.
Whilst still discussing the first article, it linked to sciencemag multiple times to present its case. Sciencemag like science.org is published by AAAS. The Treasurer of AAAS and a director of the board is Carolyn Ainslie. Carolyn Ainslie also happens to be the Chief Financial Officer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Considering that Mikovit’s testimony implicates Bill Gates (with the NIH, Fauci, and Gates known plans together) it may be a conflict of interest that many articles aiming to discredit Mikovits are coming from AAAS publications. To the layman, this may seem like a stretch, but anyone with experience on boards knows that board positions are made up of vested interests, of agendas, and voices that aim to influence every aspect of the strategic direction and modus operandi of the Organisation they direct and therefore such may definitely be deemed a conflict of interest.
- 16. The following articles:
Personally, for me, I feel embarrassed for the GBC SPT for even considering sharing this as a reputable source of journalism and the article is just more of the same used in the first article, quoting the same questionable sources. It just follows the same kind of lines as the previous article indicating connections between the hatchet jobs against Mikovits and confirming that the official narrative is the right and correct one and you can all just go back to bed, resting easy, knowing that the government has your best interests at heart. None of which was ever supported by ‘Srila Prabhupada who held a diametrically opposed view to the asuric governments and their demoniac agendas.
The GBC SPT, though, are asserting something quite different from ‘Srila Prabhupada, and are encouraging you to demonstrate the same ‘critical thinking’ that they are, by simply buying into the repeated, concerted, nescient narrative and rhetoric of the establishment.
This is alleged to be for your own health and wellbeing which funnily enough parrots the same rhetoric almost synonymously espoused by the establishments all over the world. It is like we are living in the Invasion of The Body Snatchers and those who can see through the nightmare of the nescient propaganda are being requested to simply fall asleep and all the suffering will end.
Fundamentally the GBC SPT is asking those ISKCON devotees and some ‘leaders’ to simply go to sleep and accept their fallacious arguments and nescient perspective, whilst committing the great offense of posing themselves as representatives of ‘Srila Prabhupada and the real ISKCON.
Have a look at the list of major funders for politifact and tell me if you don’t see any potential conflicts of interest https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/
It’s amusing how these media organizations call themselves independent, yet their very subsistence comes from others who no doubt carry their own agendas, plans, expectations and influences into the funding agreements.
This linked article is just opinion with a few links to the same articles and linking to the same politifact article all repeating what has been covered.
The very logic that they are claiming when it comes to being savvy and discerning must be used against these mirroring articles, which are mostly propaganda posing as impartiality and fact.
If I were to hazard a guess, I’d say that the GBC SPT have sent a couple of messages around to each other, did a quick google search, and come up with these articles, without themselves employing critical thinking and/or discernment.
- 17. A third article – “If Someone Shares the ‘Plandemic’ Video, How Should You Respond?” – deals with the social and relational aspects of receiving this or similar videos. You don’t want to insult or belittle those who send it; but you can tactfully indicate other – and better – sources:
So, here the GBC SPT in their magnanimity want to educate you on how you should deal with those dangerous people who share the “Plandemic” video and other alternate views to the State’s propaganda channels.
Of all places, they link to is The Atlantic. I mean, the naivety is astounding. The article is just about how ‘conspiracy theories’ abound. In fact, though, for one who is actually interested in critical thinking and discernment, they could see that the use of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is being used to defame any particular piece of evidence, testimony, facts of collusion, information showing certain vested interests to be conspiring etc…that goes against the establishment’s narrative. When the establishment propagates articles on conspiracy theories like blaming President Trump’s election win on Russian Hackers, they do not defame that as ‘conspiracy theory, simply because it is apart of the agenda of those who have significant influence.
Here are a few conspiracy theories that aren’t mocked and are being promoted by the establishment despite significant data* being shared by medical professionals that prove that it is dangerous misinformation. (*A lot of this data is being censored by google, youtube and Facebook which makes one question, why so much censoring, why all of this so-called ‘fact-checking’, and why the removal of varied opinions? What other times in history were such mass weapons of censoring being employed and what was the result for portions of the population?).
Some conspiracy theories floating around in the minds of many nut job conspiracy theorists are:
A. that there is this big, bad, invisible virus floating around the world and the only remedial measures available are to lock everyone in their homes, make them download tracking apps, have them wash their hands every 10 minutes, wear masks, and then wait for 7 billion people to be vaccinated before they will ever be safe again. It is alleged that such conspirators consider taking vitamin C and other natural remedies to be terribly dangerous misinformation.
B. that governments warn people against anti-vaxxers and other contrary views to theirs, social media and search engine giants team up to censor ‘misinformation’, and tech billionaires create massive vaccination agendas, all out of their own sweet magnanimous desire for your welfare and safety.
C. the theory that governments and giant corporations are not inter-related and that they don’t conspire together to gain greater control over the masses through mass propaganda channels, and that they don’t use their resources to control and manipulate education, medical and media systems.
D. that multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical corporations conspire together for the health and wellbeing of all humanity.
E. that governments work together globally for the beneficial welfare of all citizens.
F. that governments, global corporations, and the political elite whilst allowing the fast-food industry, the chemical/GMO industries, big pharma with their masses of legal drugs, cigarette and alcohol companies, vaccine manufacturers, Hollywood (and others woods), education industry, oil and gas, military and telecommunications industries to run roughshod over the physical, mental and intellectual health of billions of people around the world, but they are actually all working together to keep you safe, healthy and protected.
G. that governments conspire to establish ‘education’ systems so that you can go to school, then university, get educated so that you can slave away for a corporation for 40 years, pay your taxes, have a house, car, family, and then retire, all for your ultimate happiness.
Even though we know that politicians and the media lie, they just don’t lie to me.
Here are a few questions that one may ask:
Who is fact-checking the fact-checkers?
Who is confirming the honesty and authority of the CDC and the WHO?
Who is policing the police?
Who is checking the information of those claiming misinformation?
Who is questioning the honesty of vested interests and who are defending them when foul play is observed?
Why do some who attempt to appear reasonable and impartial in an argument, balanced and sensible, but simply fail to properly investigate any side of the argument, thus being unable to properly arrive at any conclusion, what to speak of being able to critique any side accurately?
Why are those who have arrived at a thorough conclusion based on significant and substantial research considered biased?
Why is it considered an offense to question the official narrative?
Who is reviewing the quality and honesty of the peers doing the reviewing?
If peers are all of the same corrupted education systems, then what value are their reviews?
Who decides what is and isn’t education?
Who has a monopoly on truth?
Why is sharing alternative information, facts, and testimony equated to being a ‘conspiracy theory’ nutter?
Why does questioning the safety of injecting aborted fetus material, dangerous chemicals, and animal DNA into my body, or my child’s body, make me an ‘anti-vaxxer’?
Why, when the Vedas describe those who lack proper introspection as bipeds (two-legged animals), is calling those who lack critical thinking ‘sheeple’ such a terrible sin?
Why is it that only doctors and scientists who support the establishment’s narrative are credible and those who oppose it are not credible? The same may be applied to journalists, politicians, commentators, etc…
Why, when some who are ignorant of a subject, rather than staying out of the debate, weigh in with duplicity and fallacious arguments like, everyone has the four defects, so no one knows the ‘truth’?
Why is analyzing available data, checking facts, considering the sastric and acarya’s statements on the modern civilization, and arriving at a well-informed conclusion on current matters suddenly being criticized and mocked by some ‘devotees’, inferring that such ‘devotees’ are not receiving the light of the Bhagavat, but those who remain aloof are?
Why are some promoting a philosophy of ‘humility’ that denigrates anyone having conviction in the knowledge they have acquired, making doubt the modus operandi except in the person promoting such?
Why is the ISKCON GBC supporting the mundane, nescient propaganda of asuras and rakshasas?
18. We live in a digital age and as such there are no filters on who is qualified or unqualified to speak or post content, thus resulting in an array of confusing and dangerous misinformation.
There are no filters except the likes that the State, Facebook, google, youtube etc…are placing on media so that we are getting more and more skewed information posing as qualified and truthful news.
The GBC SPT, by presenting their argument as they have, have simply become another mouthpiece of the establishment’s propaganda. I.e. only that information that is considered credible by the mainstream media (or a particular persuasion of such media) is clear and safe information and anything else is dangerous misinformation. They have bought into the official narrative and consider anything that questions such a narrative to be dangerous misinformation. They are even using the same regurgitated language as that used by the establishment. It is simply a case of those who can’t think for themselves, bound in ignorance, trying to influence those who they aim to rule into believing the nescient garbage that they hold to be true.
Perhaps if there were filters for those who are qualified or unqualified to speak, the GBC SPT may find themselves gagged (and perhaps I would too). Who would be the judge though?
- 19. We therefore ask the devotee community to continue being vigilant, discriminating and only share material that is factual, balanced, supported by evidence, and in line with our core principles.
And here is the conclusion. The request that the devotee community only shares information that is in line with the GBC SPT core principles. As we can see from the entire presentation of the argument, the GBC SPT principles are more aligned with those principles shared by asuras and rakshasas, than by the principles shared by those perfect and pure transcendental personalities descending from the spiritual realm to enlighten the living entity and awaken them from all misconceptions of life; to free them from actual dangerous misinformation.
The GBC SPT, in presenting their argument that “Plandemic” is not factual, have then gone on to share information that is questionable and arises from sources with conflicts of interest. They are inferring that they are being vigilant, discriminating, and only share material that is factual, balanced, supported by evidence, and in line with their core principles.
We can see from what ‘evidence’ they shared that they are:
- Not being vigilant, as they have simply allowed themselves to be convinced by propaganda, hearsay, and information provided by the very establishment that the video in question is testifying against. i.e. taking the word of the fox, who is guarding the henhouse.
- not supported by evidence but just links to articles by questionable sources with conflicts of interest;
- only allegedly factual but in no way confirmed to be by the GBC SPT argument;
- not balanced, as the articles shared had one agenda and one agenda only, which was to discredit Mikovits and stop the spread of the influential counter-establishment information contained in the movie Plandemic;
- not discriminating properly based on Guru, sadhu, and sastra, and not utilizing discrimination to be able to entertain possibilities of fact and truth outside the establishment’s narrative (which all articles simply reflected, in almost identical patterns, such narrative);
- not in line with the core principles propagated by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami ‘Srila Prabhupada.
This article in no way claims to be a perfect and/or complete analysis. It is aimed at encouraging critical thinking and the author welcomes any sensible counter-argument.
Now may we all get back to hearing from those resplendent and pure Vaishnavas whose very words carry the sweet nectar emanating from the lotus feet of Bhagavan Sri Krishna.