By Bill Rice at Brownstone dot org.

Every significant decision comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. For almost 6 years, politicians concluded the risk of questioning the "vaccines" was greater than any benefit from going against Big Pharma and the Deep State. But this risk-benefit calculation could change faster than most might think.

As I write, the Internet is abuzz because President Trump just made one of the most eye-opening posts he's ever sent out to the world on Truth Social, a post that suggests he might have been duped by Big Pharma when he authorized Operation Warp Speed.

This story motivated me to develop a point that's increasingly been in my thoughts and made me wonder if the cost-benefit analysis for our all-important politicians might have now changed significantly.

The question I've recently been asking myself is, why do good people blindly believe what should be viewed as obvious (or at least possible) - Mega Lies?

More specifically, why would so many people believe all the Covid lies and, more importantly, comply with the mandates and dictates of "leaders" who might be speaking with a forked tongue?

The Cost-Benefit Analysis of "We the People"

THE answer is not difficult to discern. People do this because they simply think complying will benefit them.

With Covid, the simplest cost-benefit analysis the masses made was that they (or their children, or grandmothers) could die if they didn't do everything the public health and government experts told them they had to do.

The calculation that resonated in the minds of billions of global citizens: It will benefit me (and our nation) if I stay home from work, wear a mask, socially distance, and then get two (to eight) annual vaccines and boosters.

According to the early Covid narrative, about 3 percent of people who contracted this "novel" virus were going to die. Even as the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) was later reduced, the new percentage was still said to be 1 percent, meaning 1-in-100 people who contracted this virus might die. Covid, we were all assured, was at least 10 times more deadly than the regular flu.

These probabilities - which came from the experts (who should know) - were terrifying enough to produce mass compliance.

Thus, the proverbial Man and Woman on the Street said to themselves: I'll benefit, and so will my family and hometown, because if I take these steps, this mortality probability might be reduced to 1-in-100,000 or, once I get my all-important shots, even zero percent.

Significantly, very few people questioned the validity of these horrifying probabilities (as these "life-saving" interventions were issued by the experts and everyone who mattered was saying the exact same thing.)

But What if the Experts' Death Probabilities Were Wrong all Along?

First (and strangely), it's obvious that this possibility never entered the minds of 85 percent of the population.

While America may have been dubbed the "land of the free," the greatest nation in the history of the world was not necessarily a nation where many people felt confident enough (or free enough) to "challenge the experts" or their designated political "leaders."

Which brings me to the overriding point of today's dispatch.

Long ago, the masses reached the conclusion that, true or not, they would personally benefit if they went along with the majority or consensus view on any topic - especially a subject dealing with "life and death."

That is, even if all the experts were dead wrong, everyday citizens would derive a variety of benefits if they simply went along with their august leaders, even if they were spectacularly wrong.

Or, perhaps more specifically, most people concluded, I'll experience far fewer negative consequences if I simply go along with the herd.

Beginning in March 2020, the overwhelming percentage of global citizens made just one "risk-benefit" calculation. Whether they realize it or not, the question almost all citizens asked themselves was: what course of action is ...