Always Follow the … ‘Incentives.'

It took me a while, but I get it now.

Dr. Karen Landers is widely admired in my state and is a hero to journalists and editors at our state’s largest news organization … But I’m not a big fan.

As my readers know, I write articles and make posts anywhere I can which try to advance my hypothesis that the novel coronavirus was spreading widely in late 2019.

After I made yet another “early spread” post, a colleague made a reply that sums up everything far better than I’ve done to date. Here’s his astute post:

“There is absolutely no incentive for about 99%+ of the scientists in the world (administrative state, academic, private, corporate) to ever want to truly trace down the origin timing (and a case zero may be an impossibility).  They would all look like quack minions if they discovered something other than the narrative.  Too many threw all of their chips into the narrative ship and should that ship sink…”

All this fellow skeptic did with this post was frame the debate using incentives as the psychological motivating factor that explains everything that happens. In doing this, he reminded me to always examine every topic from a “risk-reward” perspective.

The incentives - positive or negative - are all that really matter.

Why do many people, especially those in leadership positions, act in nefarious, disingenuous ways? Why are they not interested in exposing untruths?

To answer this question, one has to imagine the repercussions or harm such people would suffer if the truth was exposed. (These would be professional “risks”) …

… and then compare these negative outcomes (disincentives) to the rewards or benefits that would (and did) accrue to these same individuals if they simply went along with authorized narratives many of these people must have known were either lies or, at least, very possibly, falsehoods.

Two case studies from my own state …

To illustrate my point, I can reference two “public health leaders” in my own state as case studies.

Dr. Fauci’s successor … that’s ‘high cotton’ as we say in Alabama.

The first example is Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who previously served as director of UAB’s Division of Infectious Diseases, and was recently named as Dr. Anthony Fauci’s successor at the NIAD.

The second example is Dr. Karen Landers, one of the top officials at the Alabama Department of Public Health and the primary media spokesperson for this high-profile public health agency.

In my strong opinion, both public health leaders enthusiastically and daily promoted myriad Covid falsehoods. 

I also do not think either person could have risen to these high-ranking positions without having some intelligence. At some point, it must have occurred to both individuals that the positions they were championing weren’t necessarily supported by certain statistics, data or scientific studies.

Still, they supported all of these false or dubious positions. 

Also, significantly, they took absolutely no steps to debunk any of these false or dubious narratives.

Here, I need to cite specific examples …

I’m confident in writing that both Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers …

Supported draconian and civil-liberty-eviscerating lockdowns as a non-pharmaceutical “mitigation” measure, unprecedented measures they assured the public would slow or stop the spread of the coronavirus.

They both supported mask mandates that did nothing to slow virus spread and probably caused harm to the people forced to wear masks 8 to 12 hours a day for months or years.

They supported school closings and, once schools re-opened, student masking and social distancing.

They pushed the bogus narrative that Covid was a serious health risk to every citizen, including children who faced virtually zero mortality risk.

They endorsed the proposition that proven drugs like ivermectin and HCQ should not be used to treat Covid patients.

They either endorsed or didn’t criticize the myriad new “Covid protocols” used in hospitals even though these treatment protocols probably caused numerous unnecessary deaths.

They supported endless testing of asymptomatic citizens with PCR tests, testing which accomplished little if nothing to slow or stop spread or future cases.

They also never mentioned or questioned the fact the 40 to 45-cycle PCR tests were producing millions of bogus or dubious “cases.”

As far as I’m aware, neither Dr. Marrazzo nor Dr. Landers ever questioned the safety of Remdesivir, which many (ignored) scientists and doctors say killed many patients. (Update. Read this. Yes, Dr. Marrazzo “supported” Remdesivir. Big-time).

They never took any interest in investigating the possibility the coronavirus was spreading widely in America by late 2019 (although I myself presented both of them compelling evidence this was almost-certainly a fact).

And, of course, they strongly supported everyone over the age of 6 months getting a “vaccine.” 

They both enthusiastically participated in the campaign to vilify the unvaccinated and spread the false narrative this was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Today, they both still say the vaccine is incredibly safe and poses no real risks for anyone who got the original series of shots or now the extra “boosters,” which they still encourage everyone to get, including pregnant women and children.

Of course, these examples are my opinion, but these are opinions backed up by millions of skeptics, including countless intelligent scientists, doctors and writers/thinkers.

If our opinions are wrong, neither of these two alleged experts and public health authorities have ever agreed to a public debate to engage with these skeptics. This factual observation tells us these are not real scientists, who are happy to engage in scientific debates.

Now let’s look at the consequences from being spectacularly wrong ….

So what consequences have these alleged experts suffered from being spectacularly and stunningly wrong about so many important public health subjects?

Answer: There were no negative consequences. In fact, the careers of both ladies flourished.

As noted, Dr. Marrazzo just got the biggest promotion in the world of science, replacing “Science Himself” Dr. Fauci as the head of the agency that basically controls scientific research in America.

As far as I know, Dr. Landers didn’t get a promotion, but she’s still one of the public faces of the Alabama Department of Public Health, an agency which has never had more power or influence.

She certainly never had to worry about losing her cushy and prestigious job.

Career benefits can come from ego-boosting feature stories …

And both are literally celebrated as heroes of public health in my state.

In a recent article about Dr. Marrazzo’s big promotion, I pointed out that al.com (the largest “news organization” in Alabama) wrote a glowing piece on Dr. Marrazzo as a leader who “made a difference” in Alabama. In fact, the headline said Dr. Marrazzo actually made the citizens of our state “smarter.”

UPDATE: Dr. Marrazzo will also not like this damning expose produced by a journalist at The Defender, the journalism organization of Children’s Health Defense.

The same news organization also celebrated the contributions of Dr. Landers in a series of articles that told readers who Alabamians should exalt as brave and all-knowing public health heroes.

This series - “21 Alabamians who made a difference in 2021 - ” (highlighted) people who … made our state a better place to live this year.”

Excerpt: “Landers … has become a key public figure as the state battles COVID-19. Her calm demeanor and straight-forward answers have been a reassuring voice amid the changing health landscape …”

Regarding those alleged “straight-forward answers,” I’ve interviewed Dr. Landers and sent her office many emails trying to find out why the ADPH didn’t investigate two people who almost certainly had Covid in late 2019; trying to find out how many Alabama children really died “from” Covid and what the cycle threshold was on the PCR tests the agency used to determine Covid “cases.”

I can report I’ve never gotten one “straight forward answer” from this lady and/or this public health agency. 

I also speculate I’m probably the only journalist in my state who doesn’t consider the information disseminated by this agency as infallible.

But my main point is the point my colleague made at the beginning of this article. That is, these two people clearly personally benefitted from spreading false or dubious Covid (dis)information.

Today’s thought exercise considers what would have happened to their careers if they’d acted like me and actually questioned a few of the authorized Covid narratives.

I can make these predictions with high levels of confidence: Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo wouldn’t be getting ready to replace Dr. Fauci … and Dr. Karen Landers would now be retired from the ADPH.

Nor would either person have been the subject of the fawning feature stories al.com published.

Above, I write neither of these ladies is stupid. That is, they figured out all of the above on their own:

“Go along with the authorized narrative” = “Fantastic career accolades and unlimited prospects.” 

“Challenge the authorized narrative” = “That’s it for my public health career.”

And one can multiply these two “cost-benefit” case studies by every public health official in the world and by just about every political leader or every person who leads any important organization.

All the operative incentives point to … one authorized narrative being protected and pushed … forever and ever, I guess.

While I would argue the actions and statements of these public health officials contributed to many unnecessary deaths and immeasurable harm to countless Alabamians and made residents of our state dumber not “smarter,” from their perspective or from their (selfish) mental calculations … they definitely “chose wisely.”

My own ‘case study’ is the corollary of this maxim …

I’ll end with a “case study” of someone who did challenge the authorized narratives - me.

Did I suffer any professional or personal “harm” by opposing the authorized narrative?

Well, I lost friends. Some family members are embarrassed by my efforts and rarely talk to me anymore.

My Facebook account was suspended and de-boosted repeatedly, which meant a professional writer couldn’t do any writing that would reach a large audience using that speech platform.

I could find only one news organization (uncoverDC.com) that would pay me to write contrarian Covid articles.

My main job or skill set is as a “journalist,”  but I’m now-un-hirable at 100-percent of corporate news organizations. 

However, if I wrote the type articles al.com journalists write, I’d probably have no problem landing a real (paying) job in journalism. If I’d kept my real views private, all my former friends would still think it was okay to interact with me. Family members wouldn’t be nervous about engaging with me.

My professional and financial prospects would probably be much better than they are today.

So about that “road less travelled” … before you take it, you better think long and hard about where it might lead.

This said, this should also be said …

Actually, though, the world and all its roads can lead us to interesting places. God might have a larger plan for all of us, even the contrarians. 

As it turns out, I’m as poor as I’ve ever been, but my writing (thanks to starting a Substack newsletter) has reached more people than ever and my words might be influencing more “debates” than ever.

I certainly don’t want this article to come across as whining because I wouldn’t change anything I’ve done.

If a few people like me didn’t criticize people like Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers, who would?

The world does need at least a few contrarians … and I guess this is my lot/purpose in life.

When you write as much as I do, you have to do a little thinking about the topics you’re writing about.

At least I now understand why the world is full of “leaders” like Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers.

In investigative journalism, “follow the money” is supposed to guide our thinking. But I might adjust that maxim to say … follow the incentives. They’re all backwards, but at least this tells us why the world’s like it is.