Let’s assume, for purpose of this article that I am walking straight forward when I am sure a “scientific fact” is true. When that certainty does not stand up to further tests, and some uncertainty is introduced, then I make a left or right turn of 90 degrees. When a “scientific fact” is disproven, I have to make a U-turn, 180 degrees.
We Managed to Cope
When I started my journey through the Covid pandemic, I was a trusting soul, walking straight ahead on the path laid before me by “science”. This led to the first lockdown. Our entire extended family (children and grandchildren, 21 of us) lived within walking distance of Marti and me, so we thought and talked quite a lot. We decided that since Marti and I are in our seventies, we could claim our daughter, Sharon, who is a nurse, as our carer. That would make it sensible to declare a two-household “bubble”, so we could have a small measure of family togetherness. We were pushing the boundaries of the government guidelines, but technically compliant.
Early on, some scientists published articles stating that transmission of the virus when outdoors was very unlikely. So, we made a small right turn and invited the other family members to come into our back garden. We knew our behaviour might be questionable to others, but we concluded that we should not totally curtail extended family life because of what others might think. None of us contracted Covid as we mixed together.
Don’t Touch! No, it’s Okay.
We were careful to wash our hands and use hand sanitiser at that stage. Then studies seemed to show that the virus did not survive on surfaces but was viable when airborne. Shortly after that a large trial was done via widespread testing of surfaces on public transport in the UK. No viruses were found on surfaces. We made a U-turn and gave our chapped hands a break.
No Need to Shave for a While
We donned masks for indoor activities and, for the reassurance of others, when in proximity to others, even though outdoors—like standing in the queues outside stores. Then came the studies that concluded that masks didn’t help much, if at all. Then came the studies to discredit those studies. We turned left, then right, then a U-turn and then didn’t know where to turn.
The Dawn of Hope or Fake News?
We heard that the malarial prophylactic, Hydroxychloroquine was very effective as a Covid-19 therapy. Then the major health authorities, i.e. the World Health Authority, the FDA, Public Health England and similar authorities in most Western nations, declared it to be a dangerous drug. Our thinking made a rather tentative 180-degree turn. Then the advocates of Hydroxychloroquine pointed out that billions of doses had been administered over decades and that those same health authorities had declared it, pre-Covid-19, to be an unusually safe drug for the treatment of a wide range of diseases. We didn’t know which way to turn, so we stood still on that one and pirouetted for a while.
We had barely recovered from that one, when the Ivermectin dispute arose. It has long been demonstrated to be a remarkable defence against bacteria and inflammation but was also proven effective against a number of viral diseases. Doctors began to report amazing results in Mexico, India, Argentina, Peru etc. These were places where the vaccines were too expensive or there was insufficient supply (as the richer nations rolled out universal vaccination policies). Here was hope for a straight path we could travel!
Then the same health authorities declared Ivermectin to be dangerous too. They referred to it as a “horse de-wormer” and mocked those who were using it or recommending it. They failed to mention that it has many applications and that its developers were awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine. Many experts have referred to it as one of the few “wonder drugs” because of its wide range of efficacy and very low risk. As this exchange unfolded in the press we half turned and then turned back again, but then stayed at about a right-hand turn. We weren’t too sure at that point.
No More Lockdowns? Maybe!
Months passed and we were given enough information to evaluate the effectiveness of different national strategies. Lockdowns didn’t fare well. Nations that did not lock down didn’t have, as predicted, the highest hospitalisation and mortality rates. Nations that did lock down still had uncontrollable outbreaks. It was time to make a full U-turn about the long-term effectiveness of lockdown.
Narrow Thinking.
Then we noted that governments seemed to be unable to take the wide spectrum of policy consequences into account. They seemed to be so busy counting Covid cases, hospitalisations and Covid deaths that they could not consider the impact on children’s education and socialisation; mortality rates of untreated cancers, heart disease etc; mental health and suicide rates; domestic violence; church closures; theatre, sports and recreation curtailments; and the massive damage done to the hospitality and travel industries, retailers and service providers—well, the list just goes on and on. At this point, we had to stop with our mouths open and stare in unbelief at the absence of wise leadership.
We Were Warned to be Afraid. But They Weren’t!
We were trying to follow the medical science, as distributed by our government, but gave up in the end. Our final loss of confidence came when news leaked about the government parties during a strict lockdown period over Christmas 2020. The hypocrisy was obvious, but the fact that they were not afraid to party without masks, when the general population was warned of the great danger, led us to ask, “What do they know that they are not telling us? They are intelligent people with access to more information than we have, why are they not afraid?”
Tracking is the Reason
But the insults to our intelligence just kept coming. Health science experts were discovering that natural immunity after contracting Covid-19 was very good, but governments would not recognise it. Personally, I still needed to travel on some occasions, so I went ahead and got the vaccinations. But I still had to ask why those who had recovered had to be restricted as if they had no immunity. Where was the science behind that?
Then came a very big OOPS! The vaccine protection did not last very long. The big pharma companies that had the multibillion dollar/pound contracts to give us the original jabs, needed more money from taxpayers to give them another one after six months—then another one six months later. How long will this go on? (And where will the billions come from. There are only two alternatives, higher taxes, or the indirect tax of hyperinflation.)
Some of these deep-impact contradictions began to make sense when the money was taken into consideration. Early on, governments had allocated billions of dollars for the development of anti-Covid-19 vaccines. Their obvious intention was to protect us, but to be sure they were doing that, our vaccination status had to be tracked. If many people were avoiding the experimental vaccines in favour of therapeutics or because they had natural immunity, then the tracking system could never encompass everyone. That explained why good reports about Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and other treatments had to be dismissed.
Is There a Reason Behind Tracking?
At this point (January 2022) there is a welcome debate about the wisdom of legally requiring vaccine passports. But we have already seen unvaccinated people losing their jobs, and government mandates requiring vaccination for key workers. In the USA, those Federal Government mandates are being challenged in the courts of many states.
Follow the Money—As Usual.
My family and I have been exchanging articles and information on this subject for the past two years, that is why I am using “we” so much. About a year ago, we gradually concluded that we would continue to read widely on this subject, but we would more readily believe those who had no conflict of interest. That tends to cast some doubt on those who have close connections with the profits coming from vaccines, testing and other beneficiaries of this disease. We are also sceptical of authorities that have large grants from companies or trusts associated with companies that are profiting from Covid-19. We are also a little more sceptical if the source of information has links with the Communist Party of China. Those considerations produce question marks over WHO, the FDA, Imperial College London (among many universities and their labs) and many big tech companies.
We understand that no politician wants to be publicly accused of making decisions that failed to protect the public. When the next election comes, they would rather be accused of overcontrol than lethal passivity. So we are also somewhat sceptical about politicians.
Have You Decided Who to Trust?
This pandemic has demonstrated that the subjective and self-interested nature of human beings can warp any scientific processes and claims. I read an article this morning in which the author, who has taken a very different position than I have in this article, stated that “We must follow the experts. Choose who you trust and listen to them.”
We have chosen to trust those who have expertise arising from treating patients, who stand to receive no financial benefit, who are not protecting a prestigious position and who are not afraid of online mob action (which sometimes turns to immediate physical threats outside their homes or workplaces). We choose to be sceptical towards those who overuse threat and fear to motivate the public. We would not be very attentive to those who say it is immoral to refuse the vaccine. Accusations, threats and bribes should never be used rather than reliable information. That reliable information must include the risks associated with the vaccines. There are risks and those risks for children outweigh the risks of serious Covid-19 illness or death.
Unreliable Statistics -They Don’t Tell an Accurate Story.
Reliable information also means that the oversimplification and inflating of statistics with the aim of getting more people to take the vaccine should be exposed. I won’t go into such a major subject here but have a look at whether people have Covid prior to hospitalisation or contract it in hospital. Look at the extent to which obesity increases risk. Look at the difference between dying WITH Covid or dying FROM Covid. Look up the average age of the people who die of Covid (over 82 years in the UK). Look up the percentage of Covid -19 deaths with co-morbidities (that means a disease or condition likely to cause death—it is nearly 93%).
THINK! And Stay Free.
The past two years have seen the curtailment of many freedoms and incalculable damage to our societies. Government control has been extended more than most of us would have ever thought possible. Those who question official pronouncements and restrictions have been labelled and gagged by the greater authorities and influences. Many of us have had these questions but have been quiet for a variety of reasons. Freedom comes only when dissenting opinions can be aired and when all sides of issues can be examined and discussed publicly without recrimination.
It is time to decide who you will listen to, to stay open to new information, to question those who are most concerned with being re-elected, to distrust those who are profiting from Covid-19, to discuss, debate and SPEAK UP! Whatever position you take, stay open to new information and engage in the debates and conversations. That is the only way a free society can survive.