Videos » Debunking the Fear Mongerers

This amazing video, first shared with us by an Idaho WCC junior (thank you!) methodically, carefully, and astoundingly debunks the fear mongerer, panic seeking narrative. But it did so too well, because the agents of doom, the enemies of America, took it down. It’s back up here, but since it’s again being hosted by YouTube, which had just taken down the original, we’re sharing it with you locally hosted to make sure this message continues to get out.

The Lockdowns are unnecessary, dangerous, and perhaps even counter-productive to their stated purpose. Thank you Doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi!

Cutting through the confusion they wonderfully explain the situation, how our immune systems work, the effects of lock downs, the true death rates from the Wuhan coronavirus, and how it compares with the regular flu.

Part I

Part II

Part II of their news conference is still on YouTube with 1.7 million+ views but is liable to be removed at any time.


  1. There is a part two video that I recommend you upload also. If you cannot find it, I can get it for you.

    1. Thank you – just put if up as well – its still available as of 1pm but with 1.7 million views, its highly likely to be removed at any time.

  2. The reason it got taken down is because the doctors are really bad at math. For example, he says that 39% of people tested in New York were positive for the virus. This is true! Then he says that you can take this 39% and multiply it times the entire population of New York State to find out how many people have the disease. That is a rookie mistake though! Why? Because who gets tested? People whose physicians think that they are likely to have the disease. So *of course* they are going to have very high numbers of positive results!

    Imagine you were to go to one of their practices on Saturday night to sample the patients. If there are 10 people there and half of them are suffering a heart attack, do you assume that this “sample” proves that half of the area is having a heart attack? Well, obviously, no. Same thing with the COVID results.

    So, yeah, I would LOVE for this to be true. But it just isn’t. So, there’s no conspiracy here. The “powers that be” aren’t “hiding the truth.” They are simply pulling this video because they recognize that these guys just didn’t do their homework before they went off and created a viral video!

    1. Your argument holds for confirmed cases, because we can’t simply extrapolate forward and argue that the general population has the coronavirus in the same proportion as those who sought regular testing.

      However, there are a large amount of asymptomatic cases:

      Numbers may be off but I would agree with them in principle. Whatever percentage is/has been infected via antibody testing is multiple orders of magnitude higher than tested positives for infection (confirmed cases). NYC via random antibody testing has recorded 25% rates of present/past infection, and 15% statewide. That is half of 39% but this second phase study that gave a 25% rate came by after the doctors made their suggestion and is up from 21% in the phase one antibody study.

      Overall, I appreciate your commentary as I/we are attempting to be fair and balanced. I believe that a message like this is a necessary counter to the extremes of fear-mongering that only worsen people’s mental conditions and could lead to many other problems:

      Further, the deletion of these videos, even as other false and fear-mongering information continues to be transmitted, shows a clear bias and intent on hampering freedom of speech. That’s a dangerous threat to the protection of our federal republic, especially if, as YouTube said, they would base their content decisions upon recommendations of the WorldHealthOrganization. Of course YouTube as a private corporation has a right to do what they want with their platform. But that, however, means, that if they restrict countering viewpoints and analysis, especially, as with this video, treating a public threat from other angles that YouTube is no longer a free and open forum, but a curated service, curated to a viewpoint, alike a news network, and must be treated as such.

      1. Everett – all very good points. As I say, I’d love for the 39% number to be true. As you point out, though, a 25% past-exposure rate is still pretty large and more than enough to justify a new approach.

        I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the folks that took this down (well, I *always* try to give folks the benefit of the doubt). But, yes, as you point out, if they truly believed that the physicians were wrong, a much better approach would be to post a rebuttal. Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it.

        1. Thank you too. I waver myself on what to actually think about the true severity but I appreciate the ability to have a conversation rationally between diverging points of view and I’m putting these videos up on our site mostly on the account of the fact that they’ve been censored as opposed to merely having a rebuttal (as others have made) to their work placed. Thank you for your comments as well then. – Everett P.

Leave a Reply to MDBritt Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *