@GaryDBenz - So you agree that only oil company executives should decide where pipelines go?

By this logic, there are a lot of areas of public policy [or, apparently, personal policy! -ed] that apparently don't need to be decided by anything other than an extremely narrow cabal. It isn't a new argument, of course, any man who opposes abortion is suddenly told an entire half the population can't have any say in the matter whatsoever (note this doesn't apply to an anti-abortion woman trying to argue with a pro-abortion male). Still, I'm not sure that Gary has really thought about what this belief of his means.

People other than doctors or immunologists or virologists may not be the people you turn to in order to create a vaccine but they certainly have the right to decide whether or not they wish to get one. Imagine a law mandating that every day you have to cross a bridge, and you want to object to having your freedom of movement curtailed despite the fact you aren't an engineer and don't really know anything about bridges. Normal people would look at this and say "well, you shouldn't need to be able to build one or evaluate the costs/benefits of one in order to decide whether you personally will cross it". In this particular case, you might point out what dozens of people you know were hurt crossing this bridge and you know a lot of engineers who are concerned with the bridge: they might try to counter with a paid government engineer saying it's safe based entirely on the fact that no cases of injuries have been reported (because that same government is refusing to log the injuries even as they are reported), which you might decide is fine and good but you don't personally feel safe and don't want to cross.

If this wasn't in response to gun-nut Alec Baldwin shooting and killing somebody, you might think his reference to "the origins of COVID" put this in early 2021 rather than late 2021. After all, after a year of us being told that the origins of the virus were obviously the Wuhan Wet Market (while also insisting it was racist to say that the backwards Chinese culture which fosters wet markets also would share some of the blame), and obviously not the nearby Wuhan Virology Lab which was studying coronaviruses funded by Doctor Fauci (who falsely claimed he wasn't, which is totally what an innocent link to a non-involved party does) which was already caught receiving stealing infectious disease samples stolen from Canada by Chinese Government intelligence operatives, suddenly when the gig was up it turned out that if you listened to the "educated" folks who "weighed in" on the origins of the Wuhan Flu as Gary would request, you'd be completely wrong for over a year while the people who listened to Rush Limbaugh and Tim Pool were already getting all of the relevant facts.

It would be bad if Gary was promoting some sort of "listen to all the geniuses who can do no wrong", but it turns out the "geniuses" tend to be wrong to such a ridiculous degree that it's shocking in fact that we can find anybody who still thinks submitting to these people is a good idea. The problem remains, of course, that the people who insist we "follow the science" are instead "following the scientists". In a perfect world, A and B are indistinguishable. However...

This newspaper used Freedom of Information rules to obtain a cache of 32 emails about a secretive teleconference between British and American health officials held early in the pandemic.

But officials blacked out almost every word before releasing the crucial documents.
So the "science" that Gary followed for a year changed course (without, one notes, any serious new collection of evidence) once the bullies that coerced scientists into following a consensus (again without any hard evidence) were humiliated in front of the world, yet still refused to be open and transparent and be honest with the so-called scientific processes they were using.

Remember, the discredited "hockey stick" graph by fraudulent fake-scientist Michael E. Mann became discredited after people who were plenty educated but not in the narrow fields under discussion (sound familiar? if not, look at the tweet at the top of this blogpost) tried to analyze the data and found it extremely lacking. Which is why the narrowing of who is allowed to discuss this issue by Gary Benz is so ridiculous and backwards. The same people who champion "diversity" when it comes to asking if enough sexual perversions are present in a specific boardroom or hockey team suddenly don't want anybody other than a tiny group of self-appointed experts collecting or examining data. It's why the Pfizer Death Juice is totally safe and oh you want to look at the actual raw data? Tell your great-grandchildren to set a calendar reminder. 

The tweet above Benz's isn't about the Wuhan Flu at all, as noted, it's about psycho gun killer Alec Baldwin killing somebody with a gun. It posits (with the support of Drew Carey Show star Diederich Baker) that if you haven't worked on a film set with guns you aren't qualified to...checks notes...wait...legally obligated to weigh in on your theory about what happened. Uh, what?

Perhaps now you can see where the lunacy of this "experts in the field only" comes into play. As you'll recall, I was vilified for (accurately) guessing how Lily Tran and Sharnell Pierre died, and for (correctly) identifying some things about Niko Arlia that his family (supposedly the "experts" in "who was Niko Arlia") hadn't acknowledged.

Experts can (and often are) wrong, and we will never hold them accountable if we continue to claim that only those who are part of their often tight-knit community are allowed to weigh in on their claims and, most importantly, which public policies we enact (which can in some cases go against everything "science" is telling us).