Would China be more honest than Fauci?

I got vaccinated at the first opportunity because I basically trust the prescriptions of conventional medicine. Normally, scientific medicine delivers results that represent a clear advantage over other healing methods, even when medical interventions sometimes do not work themselves or have undesirable side effects. If the benefits outweigh the odds by 51%, you’ve won in the long run.

Although I don’t like it as a supporter of scientific medicine, not only may Covid have been created by scientific medicine itself, but the virus has often hit countries that otherwise have a clear advantage because of their modern healthcare system harder than normally disadvantaged poor countries.

It is part of science to accept facts, instead of insisting more ruthlessly on methods that, for once, don’t work so well and defaming opponents as „deniers“ and „endangerers“, the less successful one’s own methods are. The success of the vaccination is not so evident that it would justify compulsory vaccination or discrimination against vaccination opponents.

However, trust in science is lost precisely when scientists allow themselves to be incited by politics to play miracle healers who have an answer to every question. The most extreme example is Dr. Fauci, who presented himself as a major corona guru but brazenly denied before Congress his funding of the Gain of Function research in the Wuhan lab that may have led to the virus jumping to humans.

That Fauci had played a sorcerer’s apprentice in the research of corona viruses and had possibly contributed to transmission to humans through his research would not necessarily be condemnable for me, especially since he had probably acted with good intentions. Scientific research is always associated with risks. One cannot simply enjoy the benefits of science without ever expecting any disadvantages.

What is unacceptable, however, is the denial of facts in the name of scientific immaculateness. Anyone who thinks he has the legitimation to lie because he is on the right „scientific“ side is not behaving like a scientist, but like a cult guru. The black-and-white picture of good scientists and bad deniers, which has already been demonstrated in the case of climate change, is deeply unscientific. Skepticism has always been an important part of science.

If you consider how consistently the top American health official had denied the „Gain of Function“ funding, you can imagine how honestly the Chinese dictatorship would have dealt with a laboratory accident in October or November 2019.

Wo es rechte Radikale leichter haben?

Klimajünger sind so im Einklang mit dem Mainstream, dass eine normale Demonstration niemanden interessieren würde. Daher sind sie dazu verurteilt, sich immer nervigere Dinge auszudenken, um trotzdem als subversive Protestbewegung wahrgenommen zu werden.

Linksradikalismus zur Schau zu stellen, regt in Deutschland niemanden auf, wenn dabei nicht mindestens ein paar Steine oder Molotowcocktails auf die Polizei fliegen.

In dieser Hinsicht haben es „Coronaleugner“ und rechte Aktivisten viel leichter. Da werden stinknormale Demos oder ein Plakat mit „No Way“ als schlimme subversive Aktionen wahrgenommen.

Um als echter linker Genosse und respektabler Staatsfeind wahrgenommen zu werden, musste der RAF-Anwalt Hort Mahler selbst zum Terroristen werden.

Später wurde der linke Anwalt rechtsradikal. Da wurde das, was er als linker RAF-Anwalt über den rechten Staat behauptet hatte zur Realität. Horst Mahler wurde wegen falschen Meinungen verurteilt, ohne selbst zur Gewalt greifen zu müssen.