by Margaret Anna Alice at Through the Looking Glass
Your suggestive question contains presuppositional framing that implies this instrument is a foregone conclusion. I reject that premise.
Here are my demands, however, in a world where this tool exists:
1) Revert to the early 2009 definition of “pandemic,” adding back the language whose removal permitted an Orwellian declaration of “pandemic” for a non-threat with near-100% survival:
“simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness”
Similarly, restore the pre-politicized definition of “herd immunity” and expunge the myth of asymptomatic spread.
2) Follow science, not political science (a.k.a. The Science™), fostering a culture of inquiry inspired by Einstein’s words:
“Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.”
3) Prohibit conflicts of interest—financial, political, or otherwise.
4) Guarantee nations’ rights to determine their own actions.
5) Heed your guidance advising against masking, border closures, lockdowns, and disinfection.
6) Condemn mass-vaccinating during a pandemic—especially with a leaky, non-sterilizing product that fails to prevent contraction or spread and puts selective pressure on the virus to mutate into more virulent forms.
7) Acknowledge the superiority of natural immunity and encourage healthy dietary and lifestyle habits.
8) Recommend early treatment protocols advocated by WHO consultant Dr. Tess Lawrie:
9) Discontinue PCR tests and other tools that yield false positives and mislead the public.
10) Forbid the use of psychological tactics to “nudge,” induce fear, and coerce participants into compliance.
11) Require informed consent for recommended interventions.
12) Ensure an open, transparent decision-making process.