Does critical thinking = domestic 'trouble making'?

No, it should never equal

This article is about Department of Homeland Security bulletin about suggesting NOT having a covid-19 discussion. The DHS’s role is explained as:

"The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, and our goal is clear - keeping America safe."

We all recognize and very much appreciate the government’s efforts to keep us safe. The effort is robust and it's working. At the same time, there should not be TABOO subjects or fear of speaking up, especially for controversial subjects such as covid-19. Let’s consider the following:

Are we allowed to ask questions?

Are we allowed to challenge the government with questions?

Are we allowed to be skeptic?

Are we allowed to have doubts?

Are we allowed to have opinions?

Are we allowed to think for ourselves?

To wrap it up: Are we allowed to be critical thinkers?

There is no doubt that any western world government would answer 'YES' to any of these questions. But their actions do not mean 'YES'. And the DHS Bulletin from February 7th, 2022 is an example:

“Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:

The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:

For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.”

If I am allowed to ask covid-19 questions regarding the February 7th DHS Bulletin, these are some:

1. What is the cause(s) of proliferation of false or misleading covid-19 narratives?

2. Do the government and the health agencies have a contributing role to the covid-19 controversies?

3. Wouldn't public debates help clear the air and help everybody understand better the covid-19 facts?

4. Why are there no public debates for two years of the covid-19 ‘pandemic’?

5. Who is deciding about the covid-19 absolute truth?

6. Has the political polarization had anything to do with the covid-19 false or misleading narratives?

7. Why medical decisions become political decisions?

If facts are let go without clarification about covid-19, they accumulate and this accumulation (tension or pressure) might create the security threats DHS talks about. Instead of suggesting to be careful when talking about covid-19, why aren’t the government health agencies encouraged to engage in public debates to clear up the covid-19 false or misleading narratives? The health agencies did not answer many of people’s concerns regarding covid-19, and the health agencies avoided any public debate as of today. Why are the health authorities afraid of by having conversations with the public?

If I am allowed to comment of some of the covid-19 narratives (I do not know if they are false or not, but I hope by talking about them someone will help clarify them):

1. 'covid-19 pandemic'. The survival rate from covid-19 is greater than 99.9% (~420000 deaths / year with and from covid-19, ~210000 deaths / year from covid-19, population ~330M). Even during the covid-19 pandemic, there are higher causes of death than covid-19. So, why is covid-19 considered a pandemic?

2. 'vitamin D'. It is a know fact that serious cases and death associated with covid-19 are low level of vitamin D. So , why the health authorities did not talk about this the last two years?

3. ‘respiratory nature of the covid-19'. The mechanism of action for respiratory diseases, such as covid-19, uses the airways and the digestive system. An immune response is stimulated by the lymph nodes in the gut. So, how is a covid-19 vaccine, that targets the systemic immune system, going to help a respiratory disease?

4. 'covid-19 test'. The sars-cov-2 enters the body through the airways: nose or mouth. The chances to detect a virus for a healthy person (no infection and no transmission of sars-cov-2) are very high if tested at the entry point. So, isn't it a better way to test the body at the exit point (because we know if the body can fight the virus or not at the exit point)? (this is not a joke, even if one adversary country does it, it is still a fair medical question)

Why the government and the health agencies do not answer simple questions like these is beyond understanding. Why we can not have a public debate is beyond understanding. Why we should be told not to talk about specific subjects is beyond understanding. Nobody has the absolute truth and the best we can do is to try searching for it. Our governments should not ask us to avoid having conversations with this journey.

The false or misleading narratives are the easiest to solve by having more CONVERSATIONS about them. Let's not forget that even the political polarization goes down too by having (real) CONVERSATIONS. It is interesting to notice, when people are united by a higher goal, such as FREEDOM for example, it seems the security goes up by a lot, as the crimes went down by 90% in Ottawa during the FREEDOM CONVOY 2022 (even the 10% is disputable, as it was false flag 'crimes').

Considering a covid-19 conversation being a security issue seems to be a mistake, as the covid-19 controversies can be easily solved by having frank conversations. Why such a solution is not considered is beyond any reasonable thought. Are we allowed to be critical thinkers?