THREE QUESTIONS TO KEEP ASKING ABOUT THE PANDEMIC
by Patricia Reed - Aberdeen, SD - 5 August 2026
The recent “testimony”-- if we can call it that-- of Covid Czar Dr Anthony Fauci before Congress, did not clear up anyone’s questions. (On the contrary, replaying scenes from “The Godfather” over 100 times... left more questions than answers.)
Nonetheless, I submit that amongst all the questions....there are three questions in particular that do clarify our thinking about the 2020-21 pandemic. We need to keep those three questions front and center.
You either are serious about going with a “stop the spread” policy, or you are not. It’s one or the other. If you literally make a federal case about a single unvaccinated tennis player who wants to play in the US (and was refused)... and at the very same time, you not only leave your beloved country’s borders open but open them even wider than ever before-- as occurred in the Biden administration—you are not serious about “stopping the spread” per se.
Rather, you are serious about throwing your weight around and getting (some but not other) people accustomed to being bullied. For example, it was okay for Gavin Newsome to go unmasked to the French Laundry restaurant during the lockdown, but it was not okay for a sandwich shop in Calumet, Michigan to stay open. The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota was dubbed a “Super Spreader” by the media, but on the other hand... rioting against racism in Seattle was not only magically safe but morally righteous! Aargh.
Since the dawn of history, the first thing that a country does in a pandemic is to close its borders. The Biden regime did the exact opposite. They were virtually never called on it by the subservient regime media.
A medication is either safe or it is not. Which are we going with? (Very few if any medications are safe for everyone. Every new medication, whether putatively preventive or palliative, goes through a “sorting out” period to find out who is most affected and how.)
Yet somehow the vaccine manufacturers managed to get that both ways as well. One the one hand, we were told that the new vaccines were safe. Not kinda safe. Not mostly safe. They were safe. Period.
But on the other hand... vaccine manufacturers have been given immunity (such an appropriate word) against damages caused by vaccine harm. Wtf?? Why would they need legal immunity against damage claims for harms which would never actually occur? Harms that were figments of the imaginations of conspiracy theorists, and nothing more? Those harms would be laughed out of court in any case!
Ah, but it turns out that there is one context in which vaccine makers do admit that vaccines are inherently unsafe: in the context of the law that governs their own immunity to damages! In that section of the US Code, it says clearly that vaccines are inherently unsafe. (Go ahead and look it up yourself.) And the vaccine makers solemnly agree to that-- in that context. After all, it’s the law!!
If this makes your head spin, welcome to the world of pharmaceutical lobbying.
Do the Nuremberg Protocols still mean anything? Did they ever? The Nuremberg Protocols were added to international law as a response to some of the wartime horrors that came to light after WW2. Some German scientists had performed horrific “medical” experiments on unwilling (sometimes unknowing) human subjects. The Nuremberg Protocols therefore said that henceforth, medical experiments could be performed on human subjects only with the subject’s informed (“informed” is an important word here) consent. No exceptions. Yet I recall no open discussion during Covid of the obvious violation of informed consent that vaccine mandates constituted.
So the Nuremberg Protocols somehow “disappeared” during the Covid discussion (or non-discussion). Just as blatantly open borders “disappeared” from “stop the spread.” Just as “vaccines are inherently unsafe” disappeared from public awareness for just as long as it took to keep the vaccine manufacturers safe and solvent. (Understatement of the century.)
The Biden regime’s extreme selectivity in its application of long-held medical best practices... made a mockery of the entire Covid exercise.
Never again.
Editor’s note: We (the public at large) will probably never know the complete story on this pandemic issue. Never in my life have I seen such an effort by both the media and the government, working in concert, to downplay the truth in this matter. Why do I say this? Well, beyond what Patsy points out in her thoughts above, there are seemingly endless amounts of data flooding the “alternative media” at the moment that present, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence of a massive coverup that took place over these past 6 years. If you’re willing to spend the time doing the research, I have no doubt that you will come to the same conclusion that I have.
And, speaking of research, I’ve found a new tool for doing that research. The Brownstone Institute has an AI powered lookup tool that I used just minutes ago before opening and reposting Patsy’s poignant letter (above). Let me illustrate: I was reading the Fauci diaries that Sen. Rand Paul recently released from public archives and stumbled upon an entry dated 6/6/2022,
“This includes Richard Ebright, the human manifestation of Pepe the Frog, who spends his days squatting on his Twitter lily pad croaking at everyone who disagrees w/ his uninformed views on biosafety, virology, & evolution that they are shills, stooges, & thralls of the CCP.”
The tool, “Ask Brownstone” returned a plethora of information after I asked it this question, “Are there any mentions of a Richard Ebright in your archives?” Well, it turns out that Richard Ebright is anything but “Pepe the Frog”, as characterized by Fauci. He is, in fact, one of the earlier skeptics of the “official” narratives, calling for:
Ebright was one of the scientists who, in May 2021, called for a full and unrestricted international forensic investigation into the origins of Covid-19. He has also been critical of testimony given by officials and researchers, with Ebright describing Peter Daszak's testimony as "a parade of perjury."
Subsequently, Richard Ebright captured my attention and has been added to my growing list of trusted information sources.
-Craig